The proposal, backed by Committee Chair Brett Guthrie, Republican of Kentucky, and ranking member Frank Pallone, Democrat of New Jersey, immediately drew sharp rebukes from key senators. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, the Democratic co-sponsor of a competing Senate package, called the House version a “toothless & tepid capitulation” on social media, pointing specifically to the absence of a duty of care provision that would force companies to design platforms with children’s safety in mind.
The divisions between the chambers may prove insurmountable given the limited number of legislative days remaining this year, according to four lobbyists, an AI safety advocate and two Hill staffers from both parties who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive negotiations. “The House just signaled, on a bipartisan basis, what it’s actually willing to pass,” said Joseph Hoefer, principal and chief AI officer at the bipartisan lobbying firm Monument Advocacy. “By planting a flag on a narrower version, particularly on duty of care, the House is effectively setting the ceiling for what can clear the floor.”
The White House has been working to build support for a separate package led by Senator Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, which would include both a duty of care and language preempting state AI laws. That preemption provision is a top priority for Silicon Valley and is expected to be taken up by Senate Republicans. Blackburn said in a statement that omitting a duty of care from the House bill would maintain the status quo of tech companies “putting profit before the safety of our children.”
Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, has indicated he plans to advance a children’s safety package in the coming weeks that could override some state AI laws. That effort adds another layer of complexity to an already crowded legislative landscape. Early this month, a separate House draft by Representatives Jay Obernolte, Republican of California, and Lori Trahan, Democrat of Massachusetts, sought to set sweeping federal AI policy and preempt state laws, but it has received a tepid reception from the White House and GOP leaders.
Industry Pressure and Legislative Gridlock
The flurry of competing bills and drafts, much of it driven by the AI industry’s push for federal preemption of state regulations, threatens to make it harder for lawmakers to coalesce around a single vehicle. Some key senators rejected the House proposal even before Guthrie and Pallone released the bill text, signaling deep resistance to the narrower approach. One lobbyist described the situation as having a “whiff of trying” too many angles at once, with no clear path to consensus.
The House bill’s omission of a duty of care represents a significant departure from the Senate’s approach and from the broader push by child safety advocates who have long argued that platforms should be legally obligated to consider the welfare of young users. Without that provision, the House version is seen by critics as a largely symbolic measure that would do little to change how tech companies operate. The standoff leaves families and advocates watching closely as the calendar narrows and the window for any major tech legislation this year continues to close.
