The challenges and dire threats surrounding the unchecked growth of artificial intelligence appear unlikely to move Congress or President Donald Trump to act as the U.S. Senate enters its last week before the midterms. 

The rapid emergence of the technology has sparked a host of policy debates, with some warning of an existential threat to humanity, requiring urgent attention. But the only action Congress could plausibly take before November’s elections is a relatively toothless measure aiming to control the massive consumer electricity costs of AI.

“A lot of people are afraid of the dark and change is difficult,” said Sen. Jim Justice, R-W.Va. “The amazement of AI just dumbfounds us all.”

The Senate is expected to vote Wednesday on a plan to urge states to protect consumers from paying higher electricity costs from data centers. A lot of Democrats are balking at the legislation, which will need the support of 60 senators, saying the plan is weak. 

Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson are scheduled to meet with industry leaders  Tuesday at the White House. Trump continues to express wariness of any new AI regulation.

Pew Research Center this summer found 71% worried AI will mean job losses over the next 20 years, up 7 percentage points from two years ago.

“Worry over job loss has shown up throughout our research about AI, including among workers and even teenagers,” a Pew analysis said. 

With constituents clamoring for clarity, and midterm elections weeks away, it’s unclear where all this is eventually headed. Lawmakers are still trying to grasp the nature of the problems.

The simple reason it’s been hard to set regulations, says Darrell West, senior fellow at Washington’s Brookings Institution, is inertia. The industry has simply never dealt with significant government influence.

“They’re dealing with an industry that hasn’t been regulated for 25 years and is now very powerful,” he said. “It’s hard to regulate powerful industries.”

‘There is no one AI policy debate’

Concern about AI accelerated earlier this month when a former researcher at AI firms Open AI and Anthropic warned that the companies are “gambling with our lives.” 

An Anthropic colleague then said “We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!” And Anthropic’s CEO urged AI developers to slow down.

Lawmakers were quick to express concern. Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., wants a “kill switch” that would require companies to instantly shut off or curb an AI function if things look dangerous.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, and Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas, are seeking to pause advanced AI development until the federal government establishes a regulator to assure safe, secure progress.

A bipartisan group of senators is pushing hard for export controls, including making it tougher for China and other adversaries to get access to advanced AI.

Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Josh Hawley, R-Mo., are seeking a risk evaluation program that would require developers of advanced AI to provide information to the Energy Department before deploying the technology. Hawley is chairing a subcommittee hearing this week on preventing attacks from rogue AI agents. 

About all that’s getting traction is the Ratepayer Protection Act, which requires state utility commissions to consider ways to curb the electricity costs that data centers can generate.

Though it passed overwhelmingly in the House recently, it faces broad opposition from Senate Democrats as not being tough enough.

Overall, AI debate is proving to be a set of puzzles no one can solve.

“There is no one AI policy debate. There are multiple AI policy debates,” said Adam Kovacevich, founder and CEO of Chamber of Progress, a center-left trade organization representing tech firms.

He listed some of the topics: the existential risks of AI, its impact on jobs, chatbots, impacts on children, copyright, fair use.

While little is likely to happen this month, some action is likely in the future. “It wasn’t that long ago people had a positive view about technology,” said West. “Now sentiment has turned against it. The odds of something getting done are going up substantially.”

Why is Washington stuck?

The stalemate over AI stems from at least three factors:

Congress is polarized. For decades, it wasn’t unusual for Congress to take big swings to deal with emerging issues and industries.

Most recently, the Dodd-Frank banking law of 2010 provided strong new protections for consumers and helped restrain large financial institutions after the deep recession from 2007 to 2009. 

In 1996, as cable television began surging, Congress passed the Telecommunications Act to promote competition in the industry.

But in recent years, such big deals have become elusive in the House and Senate. 

“I have often told people as a new senator that if we were healthy as a country, if our politics were healthy, we’d be talking about AI every single day,” said Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., in an interview.

State regulations vary from place to place.

“The worst case scenario is 50 kinds of state laws. You don’t want to write a different algorithm for different states,” said West. “Tech firms will want one set of rules.”

In Maryland last week, Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat, set up a task force to look at new data center plans. 

In Virginia, where there are more data centers than in any other state, Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger last week took a major step toward tight regulation of data centers, though she did not propose the moratorium many environmental groups had sought.

On the federal level, even the simplest initiatives are proving tough. Trump has insisted that efforts to control AI are a “hoax,” and has resisted any bid to regulate the industry.

“I’m not going to stifle growth of anything that’s going to be bigger than the industrial revolution,” Trump said last week. He has proposed an AI Force with a top official to lead it, but has offered no specifics.

The Ratepayer Protection Act is Congress’ current bid to get companies to pay for the electricity AI generates. While it has strong support, many lawmakers complain that the bill is only a recommendation, not the mandate that’s needed.

The bill is a “fraud,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters. “It’s voluntary. No company has to do it.”

The industry’s Data Center Coalition says consumers won’t get hurt. 

The coalition ”supports the underlying goal of the Ratepayer Protection Act, and we appreciate the bipartisan effort that brought it to the House floor….we welcome the chance to work with the Senate and the Administration to ensure all large-load customers and stakeholders pay their own costs for grid upgrades and related infrastructure,” said Michele Nellenbach, the group’s vice president of federal affairs.

Competition with China is an issue. There’s a risk that if U.S. firms slow development, Chinese technology could surpass them.

Sens. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., are pushing the Chip Security Act, which would bar advanced American chips from “falling into the hands of China and other countries of concern.”

Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., is among the senators from both parties who are sponsoring a bill that would ban the export of advanced AI chips to China. 

Sens. Andy Kim, D-N.J., and Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., are seeking assurances that China can’t get the equipment it needs to make the advanced chips.

Trump said last week that while he’s open to talks about AI, he’s unworried about any threat from China.

“We’re about maybe a year and a half up on China,” Trump told Fox News Sunday. “We’re leading, and we’re building tremendous, trillions of dollars’ worth of places. And why should we give that up?” 

What’s ahead?

People want assurance that AI will be safe, and “they want the United States to continue to be a leader on innovation. The two are not mutually exclusive,” Kim told reporters last week.

There is much to learn, said Kennedy. 

“It is hard to know precisely what to believe about artificial intelligence. There are some things, it seems to me, that we do know,” he said. “We know, for example, that it is a breathtaking technology.”

Kennedy tried to get the Senate to vote this month on his kill switch plan. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., blocked the bill.

Their dialogue on the Senate floor illustrated why it’s so difficult to act. Kennedy wanted quick action. Paul wanted reflection.

“When approaching something as important as innovation, as AI, I think we should make sure we have as many facts as possible before we dictate rules for the whole economy,” Paul said.

Kennedy was frustrated.

“We are not going to get up off of our ice-cold, lazy butts and address this anytime soon,” he said. “It is just not going to happen, and we all know that.”

WASHINGTON — The rare 2026 issue that draws huge support from Republicans and Democrats in Congress is the same one that’s mobilized many Americans: restrictions on giant data centers.

The House has overwhelmingly passed legislation forcing state regulators to consider requirements that data centers absorb the cost of the electricity they use. 

But there’s more to be done, say data center critics, and they’re finding there is no easy or even obvious answer about what to do next.

Leave it to state and local governments to decide whether and how the centers should function? Should their size be restricted? Should they be banned altogether?

The future of data centers has become a flashpoint in this year’s congressional races. It’s woven into the debate about affordability, artificial intelligence and corporate influence on government.

“People see big energy cost increases and say data centers must be the reason,” said Daniel Birdsong, senior lecturer in political science at the University of Dayton.

Before leaving Washington for an extended recess not due to end until after the election, the House voted Wednesday 417-3 on a bill that requires states to consider having data centers using large amounts of electricity pay the full additional cost of that generation, as well as transmission and distribution upgrades that are needed.

Obstacles to action

The vote was only a prologue for action. There’s no clear next chapter, as skepticism is coming from critics at the White House and among progressives.

The biggest obstacle appears to be President Donald Trump.

“The people that say AI is going to destroy the World, and that Data Centers are bad for your neighborhood, are the same people that said, just a short time ago, that the World would be extinguished by ‘Climate Change,’” he said on his Truth Social site Monday.

“That HOAX never worked out for them, and now they’re on to the next one. These people are Revolutionaries, but Revolutionaries for a Bad and Evil Cause. Soon you’ll find out they’re working for people that do not have the best interests of the United States in mind!”

Senate leaders have not said how or if they’ll take up the House bill, or any other data center legislation.

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., the Senate’s second-ranking Democrat, was not optimistic.

“There aren’t many alternatives to a president who thinks this is a wonderful asset and communities who think just the opposite,” he said.

The lawmakers know this much: Their constituents don’t like data centers. 

“I’ve never seen people come together across the political spectrum like I have the last few months on concerns about big tech, concerns around AI, concerns around data center development,” said Rep. Chris Pappas, D-N.H.

A national University of Massachusetts Amherst Poll released this week showed just 11% said they backed the construction of the data centers in their local area. Sixty-five percent were opposed, and about half said they were strongly opposed.

“Opposition to AI data centers has emerged as one of these rare areas of consensus,” said poll director Tatishe Nteta.

The political divide

Solutions tend to fall along three very general lines: A complete ban or moratorium; giving state and local governments more tools to regulate the centers; and withdrawing federal support.

Putting pressure on utility companies appears to have the most legislative traction. Rep. Rob Latta, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Energy Subcommittee, found the House-passed legislation would protect consumers from runaway center-inspired utility rates.

The bill, he said, “protects American ratepayers from being forced to cover the cost of energy infrastructure upgrades needed to support data centers.”

Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Fla., one of the bill’s lead sponsors, saw the measure as help for constituents facing affordability issues. “Data centers cannot come at a cost to neighbors who are already facing high grocery, gas, utility, health care and housing costs,” she said.

At the Edison Electric Institute, which represents the nation’s investor-owned electric companies, Drew Maloney, president and CEO, said in a statement that he appreciated Congress’ work and that EEI’s members “will continue working in lockstep to ensure large customers cover the costs of the energy infrastructure they use, and communities have a strong voice from the beginning of the planning process.”  

But some environmental activists saw big flaws in the bill.

“With only a weak directive to states to voluntarily consider adopting cost protections against the energy costs of data centers for ratepayers, state regulators could ultimately choose to ignore this bill,” said Sara Chieffo, senior vice president for government affairs at the League of Conservation Voters. 

A report last year from the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that in 2023, data centers used roughly 4.4% of total electricity in this country. It forecast that the figure could double or triple by 2028 to meet the needs of more data, notably from artificial intelligence.

Consumers’ costs are generally figured by how much it costs to generate and deliver electricity. State and local regulators usually set those rates.

Looking ahead 

While the House bill had strong Democratic support, many in the party wanted to go further.

“It’s a step forward,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-New York, told reporters when asked about the House bill. “But more needs to be done.”

That could include some sort of ban, or at least a moratorium, on building more centers, an approach favored by many Democratic progressives.

“Communities should have the right to say ‘no’ to a data center being shoved down their throats,” Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., told colleagues in a floor speech. 

In the Senate, some Democrats sent a strong signal that they wanted to do more than the House bill provided.

The bill “does nothing to meaningfully address the rising costs of AI data center development. Instead, it relies on a voluntary framework that does not require AI data centers to pay the full cost of the energy they consume or the strain they place on the grid,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

“We need legislation that makes AI data centers pay their fair share and actually protects families,” he said. 

Among this week’s efforts was new legislation from a group of House Democrats to end certain currently available federal tax incentives available to data centers.

“Tax cuts need to go to families, not data centers. We absolutely should not cut healthcare and food assistance for children and seniors to pay for tax giveaways to corporations,” said Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet, D-Mich., one of the bill’s lead sponsors, at a Capitol Hill press conference.

“Why incentivize this right now?” asked Rep. Don Davis, D-N.C., another top sponsor.

Political fallout

Find a close House or Senate race and chances are good there’s a brawl between candidates over who can best deal with the data center issue.

In Ohio, Sen. Jon Husted, a Republican, is in a close battle with former Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat.

Husted is the lead sponsor of the Senate ratepayer protection bill. Husted tried to get the Senate to consider the measure Thursday but it was blocked by Heinrich.

Asked why he doesn’t support a ban, Husted said, “Whether you want a data center should be a local decision. What we should do is protect the ratepayers from bearing the burden of the cost of building the electricity those data centers use.”

Husted is in a difficult position, Birdsong said, because his call for limits on data centers “puts him at odds with Trump.”

Close House races have similar fights. In Michigan, Rep. Tom Barrett, a Republican, is campaigning as the voice of the consumer.

One way to deal with data centers, he said, is by “stopping federal overreach and preventing the secrecy pledges that have plagued Michigan and undermined the power of local residents.”

The House, though, left Washington and won’t be back voting until a lame-duck session starting Nov. 8, sparking outrage from Democrats.

“That means ZERO votes on lowering costs, ending corruption, addressing AI, or responding to the Iran war before Election Day,” tweeted Rep. Johnny Olszewski Jr., D-Md. 

The Senate’s scheduled to be around through September, but there’s no sign it will take a close look at the data center issue. The big hope is that it will continue to be discussed back home and lawmakers will return ready to act or at least debate.

“We have to understand, ‘What’s the real implication here?’” Davis said.