On September 10, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Chair Ted Cruz (R-TX) released what he called a “light-touch” regulatory framework for federal AI legislation, outlining five pillars for advancing American AI leadership.  In parallel, Senator Cruz introduced the Strengthening AI Normalization and Diffusion by Oversight and eXperimentation (“SANDBOX”) Act (S. 2750), which would establish a federal AI regulatory sandbox program that would waive or modify federal agency regulations and guidance for AI developers and deployers.  Collectively, the AI framework and the SANDBOX Act mark the first congressional effort to implement the recommendations of the AI Action Plan the Trump Administration released on July 23. 

  1. Light-Touch AI Regulatory Framework

Senator Cruz’s AI framework, titled “A Legislative Framework for American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence,” calls for the United States to “embrace its history of entrepreneurial freedom and technological innovation” by adopting AI legislation that promotes innovation while preventing “nefarious uses” of AI technology.  Echoing President Trump’s January 23 Executive Order on “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence” and recommendations in the AI Action Plan, the AI framework sets out five pillars as a “starting point for discussion”:

  • Unleashing American Innovation and Long-Term Growth.  The AI framework recommends that Congress establish a federal AI regulatory sandbox program, provide access to federal datasets for AI training, and streamline AI infrastructure permitting.  This pillar mirrors the priorities of the AI Action Plan and President Trump’s July 23 Executive Order on “Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure.”
  • Protecting Free Speech in the Age of AI.  Consistent with President Trump’s July 23 Executive Order on “Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government,” Senator Cruz called on Congress to “stop government censorship” of AI (“jawboning”) and address foreign censorship of Americans on AI platforms.  Additionally, while the AI Action Plan recommended revising the National Institute of Standards & Technology (“NIST”)’s AI Risk Management Framework to “eliminate references to misinformation, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and climate change,” this pillar calls for reforming NIST’s “AI priorities and goals.”
  • Prevent a Patchwork of Burdensome AI Regulation.  Following a failed attempt by Congressional Republicans to enact a moratorium on the enforcement of state and local AI regulations in July, the AI Action Plan called on federal agencies to limit federal AI-related funding to states with burdensome AI regulatory regimes and on the FCC to review state AI laws that may be preempted under the Communications Act.  Similarly, the AI framework calls on Congress to enact federal standards to prevent burdensome state AI regulation, while also countering “excessive foreign regulation” of Americans.
  • Stop Nefarious Uses of AI Against Americans.  In a nod to bipartisan support for state digital replica protections – which ultimately doomed Congress’s state AI moratorium this summer – this pillar calls on Congress to protect Americans against digital impersonation scams and fraud.  Additionally, this pillar calls on Congress to expand the principles of the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, signed into law in May, to safeguard American schoolchildren from nonconsensual intimate visual depictions.
  • Defend Human Value and Dignity.  This pillar appears to expand on the policy of U.S. “global AI dominance in order to promote human flourishing” established by President Trump’s January 23 Executive Order by calling on Congress to reinvigorate “bioethical considerations” in federal policy and to “oppose AI-driven eugenics and other threats.”
  1. SANDBOX Act

Consistent with recommendations in the AI Action Plan and AI Framework, the SANDBOX Act would direct the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy (“OSTP”) to establish and operate an “AI regulatory sandbox program” with the purpose of incentivizing AI innovation, the development of AI products and services, and the expansion of AI-related economic opportunities and jobs.  According to Senator Cruz’s press release, the SANDBOX Act marks a “first step” in implementing the AI Action Plan, which called for “regulatory sandboxes or AI Centers of Excellence around the country where researchers, startups, and established enterprises can rapidly deploy and test AI tools.”

Program Applications.  The AI regulatory sandbox program would allow U.S. companies and individuals, or the OSTP Director, to apply for a “waiver or modification” of one or more federal agency regulations in order to “test, experiment, or temporarily provide” AI products, AI services, or AI development methods.  Applications must include various categories of information, including:

  • Contact and business information,
  • A description of the AI product, service, or development method,
  • Specific regulation(s) that the applicant seeks to have waived or modified and why such waiver or modification is needed,
  • Consumer benefits, business operational efficiencies, economic opportunities, jobs, and innovation benefits of the AI product, service, or development method,
  • Reasonably foreseeable risks to health and safety, the economy, and consumers associated with the waiver or modification, and planned risk mitigations,
  • The requested time period for the waiver or modification, and
  • Each agency with jurisdiction over the AI product, service, or development method.

Agency Reviews and Approvals.  The bill would require OSTP to submit applications to federal agencies with jurisdiction over the AI product, service, or development method within 14 days.  In reviewing AI sandbox program applications, federal agencies would be required to solicit input from the private sector and technical experts on whether the applicant’s plan would benefit consumers, businesses, the economic, or AI innovation, and whether potential benefits outweigh health and safety, economic, or consumer risks.  Agencies would be required to approve or deny applications within 90 days, with a record documenting reasonably foreseeable risks, the mitigations and consumer protections that justify agency approval, or the reasons for agency denial.  Denied applicants would be authorized to appeal to OSTP for reconsideration.  Approved waivers or modifications would be granted for a term of two years, with up to four additional two-year terms if requested by the applicant and approved by OSTP. 

Participant Terms and Requirements.  Participants with approved waivers or modifications would be immune from federal criminal, civil, or agency enforcement of the waived or modified regulations, but would remain subject to private consumer rights of action.  Additionally, participants would be required to report incidents of harm to health and safety, economic damage, or unfair or deceptive trade practices to OSTP and federal agencies within 72 hours after the incident occurs, and to make various disclosures to consumers.  Participants would also be required to submit recurring reports to OSTP throughout the term of the waiver or modification, which must include the number of consumers affected, likely risks and mitigations, any unanticipated risks that arise during deployment, adverse incidents, and the benefits of the waiver or modification.

Congressional Review.  Finally, the SANDBOX Act would require the OSTP Director to submit to Congress any regulations that the Director recommends for amendment or repeal “as a result of persons being able to operate safely” without those regulations under the sandbox program.  The bill would establish a fast-track procedure for joint resolutions approving such recommendations, which, if enacted, would immediately repeal the regulations or adopt the amendments recommended by OSTP.

The SANDBOX Act’s regulatory sandbox program would sunset in 12 years unless renewed.  The introduction of the SANDBOX Act comes as states have pursued their own AI regulatory sandbox programs – including a sandbox program established under the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (“TRAIGA”), enacted in June, and an “AI Learning Laboratory Program” established under Utah’s 2024 AI Policy Act.  The SANDBOX Act would require OSTP to share information with these state AI sandbox programs if they are “similar or comparable” to the SANDBOX Act, in addition to coordinating reviews and accepting “joint applications” for participants with AI projects that would benefit from “both Federal and State regulatory relief.” 

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Holly Fechner Holly Fechner

Holly Fechner advises clients on complex public policy matters that combine legal and political opportunities and risks. She leads teams that represent companies, entities, and organizations in significant policy and regulatory matters before Congress and the Executive Branch.

She is a co-chair of…

Holly Fechner advises clients on complex public policy matters that combine legal and political opportunities and risks. She leads teams that represent companies, entities, and organizations in significant policy and regulatory matters before Congress and the Executive Branch.

She is a co-chair of the Covington’s Technology Industry Group and a member of the Covington Political Action Committee board of directors.

Holly works with clients to:

Develop compelling public policy strategies
Research law and draft legislation and policy
Draft testimony, comments, fact sheets, letters and other documents
Advocate before Congress and the Executive Branch
Form and manage coalitions
Develop communications strategies

She is the Executive Director of Invent Together and a visiting lecturer at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. She serves on the board of directors of the American Constitution Society.

Holly served as Policy Director for Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) and Chief Labor and Pensions Counsel for the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee.

She received The American Lawyer, “Dealmaker of the Year” award in 2019. The Hill named her a “Top Lobbyist” from 2013 to the present, and she has been ranked by Chambers USA – America’s Leading Business Lawyers from 2012 to the present. One client noted to Chambers: “Holly is an exceptional attorney who excels in government relations and policy discussions. She has an incisive analytical skill set which gives her the capability of understanding extremely complex legal and institutional matters.” According to another client surveyed by Chambers, “Holly is incredibly intelligent, effective and responsive. She also leads the team in a way that brings out everyone’s best work.”

Photo of Matthew Shapanka Matthew Shapanka

Matthew Shapanka is a strategic policy and regulatory attorney who helps technology companies and other businesses navigate complex, high-stakes legislative, regulatory, and enforcement matters at the intersection of law and politics. Drawing on 15+ years of experience across private practice, the U.S. Senate…

Matthew Shapanka is a strategic policy and regulatory attorney who helps technology companies and other businesses navigate complex, high-stakes legislative, regulatory, and enforcement matters at the intersection of law and politics. Drawing on 15+ years of experience across private practice, the U.S. Senate, state government, and political campaigns, Matt develops comprehensive policy strategies that identify regulatory risks and position clients to shape policy outcomes.

Public Policy and Regulatory Strategy

Matt serves as a strategic advisor to Fortune 200 companies on emerging technology policy, including artificial intelligence regulation, connected and autonomous vehicles, semiconductors, IoT, and national security matters. He translates complex legal and technical issues into actionable legislative and regulatory strategy, building the policy frameworks and advocacy infrastructure that enable clients to influence policy. He develops policy collateral for federal, state, and international advocacy, coordinates multi-stakeholder coalitions, and represents clients before Congress, federal agencies, and state legislative and regulatory bodies.

His technology policy experience includes securing unprecedented Presidential intervention in the $118 billion Qualcomm-Broadcom transaction (for which Covington was recognized as The American Lawyer 2019 “Dealmakers of the Year”), advising Fortune 200 companies on Bureau of Industry and Security connected vehicle rules, and counseling major internet platforms on autonomous vehicle policy across dozens of states.

Matt leads Covington’s state public policy practice, managing complex multistate legislative and regulatory advocacy campaigns. His state-level work includes securing a last-minute amendment to California’s 2023 money transmitter legislation on behalf of a fintech client and representing major technology companies on state AI, autonomous vehicle, and political advertising compliance matters across dozens of jurisdictions.

Matt rejoined Covington after serving as Chief Counsel for the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration under Chairwoman Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), where he negotiated the landmark bipartisan Electoral Count Reform Act – legislation that updated presidential election certification procedures for the first time in nearly 140 years. He also oversaw the Committee’s bipartisan January 6th investigation, developing protocols that resulted in unanimous passage of new Capitol security legislation.

Both in Congress and at Covington, Matt has prepared dozens of corporate executives, nonprofit leaders, academics, and presidential nominees for testimony at congressional committee hearings and depositions. He is a skilled legislative drafter and strategist who has composed dozens of bills and amendments introduced in Congress and state legislatures, including many that have been enacted into law.

Election and Political Law Compliance and Enforcement

As a member of Covington’s Chambers-ranked (Band 1) Election and Political Law practice, Matt advises businesses, nonprofits, political committees, candidates, and donors on the full range of federal and state political law compliance matters, including:

Election and campaign finance laws
Lobbying disclosure
Government ethics rules
The SEC Pay-to-Play Rule

He also conducts political law due diligence for M&A transactions, counsels major political funders and donors in compliance and enforcement matters, and represents candidates, ballot measure committees, and donors in election disputes and recounts.

Before law school, Matt served in the administration of former Governor Deval Patrick (D-MA), where he worked on policy, communications, and compliance matters for federal economic recovery funding awarded to the state. He has also staffed federal, state, and local political candidates in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Photo of August Gweon August Gweon

August Gweon counsels national and multinational companies on new regulatory frameworks governing artificial intelligence, robotics, and other emerging technologies, digital services, and digital infrastructure. August leverages his AI and technology policy experiences to help clients understand AI industry developments, emerging risks, and policy…

August Gweon counsels national and multinational companies on new regulatory frameworks governing artificial intelligence, robotics, and other emerging technologies, digital services, and digital infrastructure. August leverages his AI and technology policy experiences to help clients understand AI industry developments, emerging risks, and policy and enforcement trends. He regularly advises clients on AI governance, risk management, and compliance under data privacy, consumer protection, safety, procurement, and platform laws.

August’s practice includes providing comprehensive advice on U.S. state and federal AI policies and legislation, including the Colorado AI Act and state laws regulating automated decision-making technologies, AI-generated content, generative AI systems and chatbots, and foundation models. He also assists clients in assessing risks and compliance under federal and state privacy laws like the California Privacy Rights Act, responding to government inquiries and investigations, and engaging in AI public policy advocacy and rulemaking.