OpenAI lobbies states for AI laws

Chris Lehane, OpenAI’s chief global affairs officer, said on May 20 that the company is trying to shape U.S. artificial-intelligence regulation from the states up rather than wait for Congress. In an interview with POLITICO, Lehane said OpenAI is urging large Democratic-led states to adopt similar AI rules that could function as a national baseline if Washington remains deadlocked. The company’s push comes as state legislatures continue to introduce AI bills while the Trump administration argues for a more uniform federal approach. The result is a regulatory fight playing out at two levels at once: Congress and the states. ### Who is making the push for OpenAI? Chris Lehane, a former Democratic political strategist who now serves as OpenAI’s chief global affairs officer, is leading the effort. POLITICO reported that Lehane described the strategy as “reverse federalism,” a plan to get major states to pass matching laws that could effectively set a national standard before Congress does. (politico.com) May 20 was the date POLITICO published Lehane’s comments, including his statement that OpenAI wants “a bunch of the big states to come together and mirror each other.” Lehane said California and New York had already moved in that direction and identified Illinois as the next target. ### What kind of state laws is OpenAI backing? California and New York are the two states Lehane pointed to as early models. (politico.com) POLITICO said the laws OpenAI favors focus on transparency and reporting requirements for developers of advanced AI systems, while avoiding steep penalties and broad new liability for catastrophic harms. The company’s approach is to influence legislation state by state rather than oppose all state action outright. (politico.com) POLITICO reported that Lehane framed the campaign as an attempt to “co-opt” the state patchwork that the tech industry has spent months warning against. ### Why is this happening in the states instead of Congress? Congress has not produced a consensus federal AI law, according to POLITICO’s May 20 reporting. (politico.com) That impasse has left room for governors and state legislatures to move first, especially in large Democratic-led states where lawmakers have been more active on tech regulation. The National Conference of State Legislatures said its AI legislation database tracks enacted and pending state measures and is updated monthly, underscoring how quickly the state map is changing. (politico.com) NCSL said the database covers bills introduced from 2025 onward across topics including government use, private-sector use, discrimination, elections and deepfakes. ### How does this fit with the White House position? The White House released a national AI legislative framework on March 20, 2026, calling for federal leadership and warning against conflicting state approaches. The administration said a national framework is needed to protect innovation, address child safety, support creators and respond to national-security concerns. (ncsl.org) March 20 is also important because it shows the pressure on states may increase, not decrease. POLITICO reported that Republican lawmakers and governors appear to be waiting for direction from the White House, while Lehane said OpenAI has been working not only with legislatures but also with governors’ offices including those of Gavin Newsom in California and Kathy Hochul in New York. (whitehouse.gov) ### Why does Illinois matter next? Illinois is the next state Lehane named because OpenAI sees it as a chance to extend the California-New York model into another large Democratic-led state. POLITICO reported that Lehane said lawmakers there were preparing to advance legislation that OpenAI endorsed and that mirrors the recent laws in Sacramento and Albany. (politico.com) The next concrete test is whether Illinois lawmakers move that bill and whether other states copy it. NCSL’s database remains one place to track those bills, while the White House framework and future congressional action will determine whether any eventual federal law overrides parts of the state approach. (ncsl.org) (politico.com)