The framework gets two structural choices right. Routing AI oversight through existing sector-specific regulators rather than creating a new federal agency reflects a sound instinct: AI is not a standalone industry but a capability that cuts across every regulated sector, and agencies such as the SEC and FDA understand the markets and products they oversee better than any new super-regulator could. The White House is also right that a patchwork of fifty state regimes would create an…

Chair Atkins’s remarks strike exactly the right chord by anchoring the SEC’s approach to artificial intelligence in a time-tested standard: materiality. By resisting the urge to create prescriptive "checklists" for AI disclosures, the SEC is correctly treating AI as a structural business development rather than an isolated novelty. This reflects the practical, principles-based approach employed by the SEC more broadly. It ensures that firms are focused on providing meaningful transparency to…

This Executive Order attempts through executive action what Congress has yet to accomplish through legislation. The Order creates mechanisms to challenge and defund state AI laws before establishing the substantive federal framework that would justify preemption. Preemption without a meaningful federal standard is not harmonization; it is deregulation by another name. (See .) The directive requiring the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto and the Assistant to the President for Science and…

At the House Financial Services Committee meeting on AI, members got the diagnosis right but the prescription wrong. Representative William Timmons correctly warned that a "patchwork of state laws" creates a compliance nightmare, raising costs and stifling innovation. However, the proposed solution, federal preemption, requires Congress to occupy the field. Preemption without a substantive federal framework isn't harmonization; it is a free for all. While industry witnesses touted AI’s…