The midterm convention was designed to address a specific decade-long problem: support for President Donald Trump isn’t easily transferable to other Republicans, especially when he isn’t on the ballot. Some Trump voters don’t bother to turn out in midterm elections when he isn’t the main attraction.

Trump and a bevy of administration officials appeared in Dallas to remind those voters who they would be letting down if they don’t come to the rescue of narrow Republican congressional majorities in November. “You’ve gotta do this for me,” Trump said on Thursday night in his second speech of the event.

But many of these Republicans are endangered because Trump’s job approval rating is below 40% in the RealClearPolitics polling average. Democrats are up 6.2 points in the generic congressional ballot, which measures which party voters prefer to see control Congress.

In all but two midterm elections since 1938, the party that holds the White House has lost seats in the House. But oil is running at $100 a barrel, diesel prices are nearing $6 a gallon, the country is once again at war in the Middle East, and inflation remains stubbornly high — all difficult conditions for incumbents and the party in power.

But Republicans remain competitive in some Senate races where polls show more than 40% want to cast their votes in protest against Trump. One of these candidates, Michigan GOP Senate nominee, former Rep. Mike Rogers, spoke at the GOP midterm convention. What keeps some of these Republicans in the running is Democratic candidates who are too far to the left.

The midterm convention planners tried to square this circle by making the case for the Trump administration and highlighting the most left-wing Democrats on the ballot this year, including Rogers’s opponent Abdul el Sayed.

“Don’t give the country over to a bunch of crazy people because you happen to disagree with us on a policy issue here and there,” Vice President JD Vance said in his keynote address Thursday night. “Look, I’m not asking anybody to agree with me on every single issue. I’m not asking anybody to agree on every single policy of the administration. What I am asking you to do is recognize the contrast with the radicals and recognize the achievements of the last 18 months. We’ve done a lot, my friends, and we can do a lot more if we fight together.”

Control of the Senate runs through several states Trump carried in 2024, some by double digits (this includes Texas, where Republicans were gathered). Republicans also sought to make the red portions of the House map even redder through mid-decade redistricting.

But in making this case, a few things went unsaid. Speakers largely avoided making specific commitments as to when public perceptions of the economy were going to change, even as many of them seemed confident they would eventually.

There was no word on whether the war in Iran would end, although Trump told reporters a few hours before he addressed the convention for the first time that it likely wouldn’t be before the midterm elections.

In answering this question about Iran, Trump took a stab at addressing economic expectations as well: “[R]ight after the election, oil prices are going to be tumbling downward,” he said. “They’re going to be tumbling down, and we’ll get them down, I think, for gasoline. We’ll get them below $2 a gallon, but not until after the midterms. I think it’s going to take a little bit longer than the midterms.”

This wasn’t said at the convention itself, however.

One of the biggest questions hanging over the GOP gathering is what comes after the midterm elections, when attention inevitably shifts to 2028 and Trump faces constitutional term limits.

The answer was heavily implied, with Vance taking a front-and-center role at the proceedings, much as he has emerged as a top fundraiser for the Republican National Committee and a leading surrogate on the campaign trail. The most discussed alternative, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, wasn’t in Dallas and hasn’t been all that active on the domestic political front.

But Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who has openly expressed his presidential ambitions and was the runner-up behind Trump in 2016, spoke at the midterm convention. Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX), who is seeking a fourth term, also addressed the hometown crowd amid rumors he might consider a presidential run.

Outgoing Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) wasn’t on hand in Dallas, though his would-be successor, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL), was. But DeSantis, who challenged Trump for the nomination in 2024, was quick to pan the president’s $5,000 “dividend” check proposal. 

When the crowd chanted about Vance becoming the 48th president, he demurred. “ Can we please, we got to take care of business this November, then we’ll worry about what comes next,” he said.

That has been Vance’s official 2028 position for months as speculation builds.

There was also no discussion of what the administration would do if forced to coexist with a Democratic Congress. That’s to be expected at a convention designed to promote Republican House and Senate candidates, though Trump’s son-in-law made overtures to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) in a private meeting last month. 

 THE 10 SENATE SEATS MOST LIKELY TO FLIP IN 2026

Trump was a little more forthcoming about a Democratic Congress in an interview with Fox News’s Laura Ingraham. “I’ll probably be able to make deals with them, you know, they’re going to want some stuff, and you’ll make deals, it’s one of those things,” he said. “It’s not as dire, maybe it is as dire.”

Democrats famously impeached Trump twice in his first term after taking control of the House in the 2018 midterm elections.

Trump closed out the Republican Party’s two-day midterm convention in a rambling speech Thursday night, urging Republicans to “get out and vote” this November. Otherwise, Democrats are poised to retake control of Congress.

“You gotta do me a big, the biggest favor you’ve ever done me. You’ve gotta do this for me. You’ve got to pretend I’m on the ticket,” Trump said.

“You got to get out and vote, and you’re going to pretend I’m on the ballot because, in a way, I am on the ballot,” he added. “Because if [Democrats] get in, they’re going to take away all of the things that we got, and we can’t let that happen.”

The president’s closing remarks were mostly a repeat of his previous speech the night before, but at one point, he did quip that Republicans may be eternally damned if they don’t vote this fall.

“You know what happens if you don’t vote?” he said. “You go to hell, and I don’t want that to happen to you. So please go and vote.”

On the second and final night of the first-ever midterm convention, Trump made a strong push for voters to reject socialist candidates, or, as he frequently calls them, “communists.”

An example of such a candidate is Michigan Democrat Abdul el Sayed, who is running against Republican nominee Mike Rogers for the Senate. Though el Sayed identifies as a capitalist rather than a socialist, he has the support of the Democratic Socialists of America movement.

“They’re not socialists. They’re not Democrats. They’re communists,” Trump said. “We will reject these radical-left lunatics. We will demolish the extremists, fanatics, lunatics, and criminals who want to destroy our country.”

Trump is doing his part to boost the party’s chances of winning the midterm elections by endorsing several Republican candidates running for the Senate. In his closing speech, Trump touted his endorsement of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is running against Democratic nominee James Talarico.

TRUMP SAYS HE’LL BE A ‘BLOCKER’ AND CUT DEALS WITH DEMOCRATS IF THEY WIN CONGRESS IN 2026

“You’ve got to elect Ken Paxton,” Trump told the crowd before going on a tangent about how he has been critical of the way Paxton dresses.

That said, Trump called Paxton the “greatest attorney general” in Texas and the rest of the country. Paxton has served in that post for over 11 years.

“He is a huge leader of the party right now, and he’s done a phenomenal job supporting the president and making the case to the American people that what the president has been doing both domestically with economic policy, with the border, but also in many instances with foreign policy, makes a lot of sense,” Gill said.

“So I’d love to see Vice President Vance at the top of the ticket,” he added.

Vance has emerged as one of the most prominent potential successors to President Donald Trump, with his Thursday keynote at the GOP midterm convention drawing attention to the party’s post-Trump future. As Trump’s presidency inches closer to the halfway mark, focus has shifted to who will be his successor.

But before a successor can be finalized, Republicans must first face the midterm elections.

“I just want to make sure that we can keep a majority in the House,” Gill said. “I want to make sure that we can make the case to the American people that this election is about mainstream values for the Republican Party and extreme values.”

Gill, speaking with the Washington Examiner at the Republican National Committee’s first-ever midterm convention in Dallas, Texas, his home state, emphasized the energy and excitement from attendees.

“My favorite [thing is] getting on stage and seeing the excitement from Republican voters all over the country, and seeing how engaged they are and how ready they are to fight for our country this election cycle,” Gill said to the Washington Examiner.

The convention has brought together some of Trump’s staunchest supporters, with Trump asking them to “vote like I’m on the ballot” in his Wednesday keynote address.

Gill called on Republicans to take a lesson from Trump’s time in office: follow through on campaign promises.

“I think the No. 1 thing Republicans are taking from the Trump era is that we ought to be doing what we said we’d do,” Gill said.

He argued that Republican and Democratic presidents have spent decades promising to secure the southern border, but that Trump followed through on this promise.

“It was President Trump who actually had the backbone and cared enough, frankly, for the American people and had enough respect for the American people that he was actually going to do what he said he was doing,” Gill said.

‘ELECTRIFYING’: TRUMP SUPPORTERS BRING ENERGY TO GOP MIDTERM CONVENTION

Gill said Republicans should look at Trump’s record as they consider the party’s future beyond the current president.

For Gill, that future currently points toward Vance.

READ IN FULL: TRUMP DELIVERS KEYNOTE ADDRESS ON OPENING NIGHT OF RNC MIDTERM CONVENTION

Trump said that Democrats were “so destructive” and “have no heart.”

“A vote for any Democrat this year, anywhere in the country, is a vote to let a small and dangerous group of extremists hold our Congress and our country hostage,” he said. “If they win, every bill becomes a ransom negotiation.”

The remarks came amid a feud between the candidates over national security ahead of Friday’s 25th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, with Rogers portraying el Sayed as a threat to the United States if sent to Washington and condemning his relationship with controversial Twitch streamer Hasan Piker, who once said America “deserved” 9/11 before walking it back.

“He’s a con man. I’m a lawman. He wants to apologize for America. I want to defend America,” Rogers told convention attendees at the Dallas event, alluding to his time as an FBI agent and congressman from 2001-2015. “He wants to represent Palestine. I want to represent Michigan. And when the radical Islamic terrorists threaten Americans, we don’t need a senator searching for excuses. We need a senator hunting them.”

El Sayed, a former local health official, has made criticizing U.S. support for Israel and advocating for Palestinians a major part of his campaign that, in some cases, has prompted Jewish Democrats to align with Rogers. The battleground toss-up race to replace retiring Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) is a must-win seat for Senate Democrats to defend, if they’re to have a chance at netting four new ones to retake the chamber.

ROGERS AND EL SAYED SPAR OVER 9/11 IN LEAD-UP TO ROGERS’S GOP CONVENTION SPEECH

A split-screen moment unfolded, with Rogers delivering his remarks at the same moment el Sayed held a town hall in Detroit. The Democrat told attendees that Rogers was down in Texas to act like a Dallas Cowboys cheerleader for President Donald Trump.

“He’s not in Dallas because he’s calling any shots or making any policy,” el Sayed said. “He’s in Dallas because he’s going to cheer every single policy Donald Trump tells him to cheer for. This is a man who’s willingly sold himself out to be a sock puppet.”

Jordan, the firebrand chairman of the judiciary committee, says he hasn’t “even thought” about next year and whether there might be a leadership shakeup if Republicans lose their narrow House majority.

“We’re going to hold it,” he said in an interview. “We’re gonna stay focused on winning, which is what we have to do, which is what, I believe, is best for America.”

But Jordan hasn’t exactly hidden his desire to ascend to the top of House leadership. He’s run for speaker twice, most recently in 2023, and raised fresh questions about his political future when he revealed on Wednesday that he would not seek the top GOP spots on Judiciary and another investigative committee he previously led.

The conventional wisdom is that House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) would continue as speaker for a third term if Republicans overperform on Election Day. Right now, they have a two-seat majority and are banking on redistricting to help them overcome President Donald Trump’s low approval ratings and the usual headwinds that face the party in power.

But if polls are correct and their House majority is wiped out, Johnson could step away and be replaced, either by one of his deputies or Jordan, a one-time House rabble-rouser who has more recently courted the centrist wing of his party.

Johnson has declined to say whether he’d run for minority leader next year, but told the Washington Examiner on Wednesday that it will be Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) who continues to hold that title.

“We are going to hold the majority,” Johnson said on the sidelines of the convention. “We’re going to defy history.”

Republicans need only look back three years to see who might run in a contested leadership election. Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA), Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MO), and Jordan each struggled to lock down the votes needed to replace ousted Speaker Kevin McCarthy before Johnson, then a junior member of leadership, emerged as a unity candidate.

Since then, each has barnstormed the country on behalf of incumbents and GOP hopefuls alike. Jordan, in particular, has raised eyebrows with his political evolution and interest in fundraising for the National Republican Congressional Committee, something he once refused to do.

As a founding member of the conservative Freedom Caucus, he was once dubbed a “legislative arsonist” by Speaker John Boehner, but has increasingly acted as a conduit between House leadership and GOP rebels. He’s also softened his stance on policy priorities, including FISA, the lapsed spy program that allows foreign warrantless surveillance.

At the convention, Republicans were reluctant to open the door to conversations about a leadership shakeup that would only come to pass if they suffer defeat this fall.

“It’s not a time to talk about what we’re going to do after the election,” said Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC), the chairman of the NRCC. “We got to stay focused on the election.”

Jordan also avoided giving a direct answer on whether he’d run again, telling the Washington Examiner only that he is “totally focused” on helping House Republicans win in November. Before his 2023 bid, Jordan unsuccessfully ran for minority leader following the retirement of Speaker Paul Ryan in 2018.

Those who know Jordan best say he won’t be shrinking away from the spotlight next year.

“He will never be a back bencher,” Sen. Jim Banks (R-IN), one of the first Republicans to endorse his last leadership bid, told the Washington Examiner.

Former Rep. Matt Gaetz, the Florida Republican who set McCarthy’s ouster in motion, said that Jordan stepping back from his leadership role on the Judiciary Committee was a sign that he “has his eyes on a bigger prize.”

“Running for leader typically isn’t an itch that goes away with one scratch,” Gaetz said.

The same dynamic that blocked Jordan’s path to the speaker’s gavel in 2023 — more than two dozen establishment-minded Republicans opposed him before he withdrew from consideration — could again get in the way of his leadership hopes.

One factor working in his favor, however, is the lower vote threshold needed to become minority leader. 

Speakers are elected by the entire membership of the House and must earn the support of virtually everyone within their conference. The opposition party leader, by contrast, just needs a simple majority of their members to vote “yes.”

Jordan is also regarded as better suited to leading Republicans in the minority, given his partisan reputation, and he would face less scrutiny about whether he can be a consensus builder. Through his roles on the judiciary and oversight committees, he’s led years of investigations into Democrats, including the impeachment inquiry into former President Joe Biden.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE), a retiring Republican who opposed Jordan’s speakership run, said his conference should “get behind” whichever candidate earns a majority of the vote. Bacon said that his opposition in 2023 was based on loyalty to McCarthy and the unceremonious way he was deposed by Gaetz and a handful of allies.

“We have a process and people should respect it,” Bacon said. “A small group should not be able to bully 223 members, and that’s what we had. We had to beat them at their own game and teach them a lesson. The squishes got a backbone.”

If Democrats do take the majority, it may be Jeffries who faces similar resistance, this time from those on the Left who want guarantees he will govern as a progressive Democrat.

Jeffries most recently upset his left flank when he met with Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, to discuss areas of possible common ground.

REDISTRICTING PUSHES VULNERABLE HOUSE DEMOCRATS TO THE RIGHT IN FLORIDA

“I don’t think any speaker is ever a shoo-in, and I don’t think Leader Jeffries even views it that way,” said Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO), one of the House Democrats who traveled to Texas to counterprogram the convention. “Like, nobody takes anything for granted, right?”

Crow added that “nobody is entitled to anything,” but praised Jeffries as a minority leader who took his job “seriously every single day.”

Naomi Lim contributed to this report.

“It is a problem,” Cusack said Thursday on C-Span’s Campaign 2026. “At some point, we’re going to have to save Medicare and Social Security, which are headed for bankruptcy, and neither party is doing it.”

Trump made the announcement at the GOP’s midterm convention in Dallas on Wednesday. The first-of-its-kind convention is taking place through Thursday and could provide Republicans a chance to change their campaign narrative. The event is focusing on Trump and the GOP’s agenda. Trump and Vice President JD Vance are speaking at the convention.

Cusack said the purpose of the event is to drive “political momentum” and that Trump is “trying to really capture what they did, promises kept, and they won’t mention promises they haven’t kept.”

“They want to make some news, they want to attract headlines, and they want to have good headlines,” Cusack said.

Trump touted “tremendous economic success,” and floated the $5,000 checks during his Wednesday speech.

“The reason the Democrats can’t do that is because they don’t do tariffs, they don’t take in money,” Trump said. “All they know is poverty and how to ruin our country. But we’re making a fortune. So if the Republicans win, you win with us, and you get $5,000. It will be called the Trump dividend. We’ll call it the Trump dividend. Congratulations. Now all we have to do is win.”

Trump also said the money has to be spent in the U.S.

Cusack highlighted the $40 trillion national debt and the race to save federal programs, including Medicare and Social Security.

“We’ve hit the $40 trillion debt mark, and you know, deficits matter, debt matters,” Cusack said. 

“Trump has not shown an interest in significantly reducing the deficit or the debt. He’s made promises that he has not kept on that.”

TRUMP’S PROMISED $5,000 ‘DIVIDEND’ CHECKS: WHAT TO KNOW

Trump said the checks would be paid for through revenue from tariffs.

“Getting this type of proposal through a narrowly divided Congress, even if they defy the conventional wisdom and history, and somehow hold on to both the House and Senate, that’s going to be tough to pass,” Cusack said.

The company said Wednesday that it supports bills that would create a framework for independent AI safety assessments, establish standards for AI auditors, impose new protections against children using AI companion chatbots, and require AI models to follow federal screening standards intended to guard against AI-enabled biological threats.

All four bills have passed the California legislature and are headed to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D-CA) desk.

“We’ve reached a new chapter in AI capabilities, and that demands a new chapter for AI policy,” OpenAI chief global affairs officer Chris Lehane wrote. “No company, industry, or government can meet this challenge alone. We need to meet this moment with a bias toward meaningful action over policy perfection.”

OpenAI is also seeking voluntary safety standards across the AI industry and international agreements governing how advanced AI capabilities are measured, risks are managed, and human control is maintained.

But the company says voluntary measures are not enough.

“We want to work with Congress on mandatory, capability-based national AI safety regulation,” Lehane wrote.

Until then, the company is encouraging states to act. OpenAI has previously backed AI safety measures in California, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts, arguing that states can establish a common baseline that Congress could eventually adopt nationally.

Lehane called that approach “reverse federalism.”

“These bills are not a substitute for federal regulation,” Lehane said of the California legislation. “They are serious efforts that can protect people now, demonstrate what workable safeguards look like, and help build momentum for federal action.”

OpenAI said some of the California bills it now supports were not previously endorsed but that it changed its position after a recent acceleration in AI capabilities.

Meanwhile, concerns about the risks of artificial superintelligence have been raised by some inside the industry.

Jacob Coxon, a researcher at rival AI company Anthropic, announced his resignation Tuesday, saying he was alarmed by the direction of the technology. He accused both Anthropic and OpenAI of racing toward autonomous and potentially self-improving systems.

TRUMP SAYS IT’S ‘OK WITH ME’ IF REPUBLICANS DISAGREE WITH HIM ON DATA CENTERS

“Neither company is acting responsibly,” Coxon wrote on X, arguing that the companies are “gambling with our lives.”

Coxon said OpenAI had not sufficiently internalized what he called the “civilizational stakes” of advanced AI.

Political debates in Washington often miss what is happening in the real world. A good example is the recent fight over the future of the U.S. Department of Education. Headlines focus on budget cuts and restructuring, yet behind the scenes, federal money keeps flowing to local programs exactly as before.

The real problem is how this tax money is being spent. The federal government is quietly funding a culture that turns specialized development into a commodity. We see this in two areas: school gifted and talented programs and youth travel sports leagues. Both systems have broadened their entry criteria so much that they now function like high-priced, institutionalized participation trophies.

Advanced tracks are justified when they stick to their original goal: Providing a challenging environment for children who show early, exceptional talent. When properly targeted, these programs cultivate elite capability. Today, however, both systems have shifted far from that purpose. What started as small, selective programs for highly proficient children has become mass-market businesses that dilute entry criteria to accommodate broad consumer demand.

Decades ago, gifted education was kept for a tiny group of top students, and travel sports were elite teams meant to prepare older high school athletes for serious competition. Now, both tracks have expanded to fit almost everyone. Gifted tracks have become general enrichment programs, while travel sports leagues sign up children as young as 7 years old, regardless of skill level. What used to be a selective opportunity based on raw capability is now a standard middle-class expectation. If everyone is considered advanced, then the programs cease to be advanced.

This artificial expansion places a crushing financial burden on individual families, aggressively encouraging massive out-of-pocket spending far beyond the normal costs of mainstream schooling and local recreation. In the academic track, parents are pressured to purchase private cognitive tutoring, outside enrollment in specialized summer camps, and expensive test-prep materials just to help their children maintain an edge.

In travel sports, the basic registration fee is merely a down payment on a mountain of hidden costs. According to data tracked by the Aspen Institute’s Project Play, youth sports has ballooned into a $40 billion empire. Financial advisors warn that families face costs that rival a second mortgage payment, including mandatory uniform packages, private coaching clinics, tournament parking, and thousands of dollars annually in mandatory travel and hotel bills.

This environment forces parents to buy into a system just to keep their children from falling behind. Yet the payoff rarely matches the sacrifice. Less than 2% of high school athletes ever get a college sports scholarship, and early academic tracking is no guarantee of admission to a top college.

The hidden tragedy of this expansion is the deep psychological damage it causes inside the home. By diluting the standards, we are funding a system built on a lie. We are falsely telling our children — and convincing ourselves as adults — that participation in a high-priced program means a child possesses truly elite talent.

This creates a dangerous, false sense of excellence. We absolutely want to foster self-improvement in every child, but when we label normal development as “exceptional” just because a parent paid a fee, we fool no one but ourselves. When these young adults eventually face the harsh realities of a competitive society, the realization that they were misled can be devastating.

Instead of building real confidence, this artificial tracking creates extreme anxiety. Research published by the American Psychological Association warns that modern youth face a massive surge in perfectionism and anxiety driven by intense academic and social expectations. Children end up performing strictly to satisfy the massive financial and emotional investments of their parents. Instead of developing resilience, they learn to fear failure above all else, resulting in unprecedented rates of burnout and physical overuse injuries.

This corporate shift has also hurt our local communities, ruining low-cost town recreation leagues and pricing out working-class families. We see the same divide in schools, where wealthy districts keep top-tier programs while lower-income schools face constant cuts.

Despite these failures, taxpayer support continues without real oversight. In the classroom, Congress recently protected funding for the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program. Millions of federal dollars keep moving to local schools with very few rules about who actually qualifies to participate.

On the sports fields, the federal footprint is actually growing. Lawmakers are currently pushing the Promoting Lifelong Activity for Youth (PLAY) Act. This bill would change the tax code so parents can use child care tax credits for private sports fees. At the same time, local towns spend millions in tax dollars to build massive sports complexes for private tournaments.

CANDACE OWENS DEBATED CHARLIE KIRK’S MURDER. WHO’S INVESTIGATING THE DEATH OF TRUTH?

Congress is simply not paying attention. Lawmakers are expanding tax breaks for elite sports and locking in money for exclusive academic tracking, yet no one in Washington is asking the core policy question: Do these diluted programs still deserve public funding?

Advanced programs are worth protecting, but only when they serve truly talented children. When the criteria are lowered to turn specialized development into a paid commodity, the system breaks. If the federal government is going to keep funding these pipelines, it must demand better results. It is time for authorities to set strict limits. We must ensure public dollars support real talent rather than funding a corporate anxiety economy that harms our children.

Dr. Eric Wargotz is a policy analyst and writer; a practicing physician; clinical professor emeritus at the George Washington University, Judge of the Orphans’ Court of Queen Anne’s County, Maryland Judiciary; former Elected President of the Queen Anne’s County Board of County Commissioners; and the 178th president of MedChi – the Maryland State Society. The views expressed in this article are solely his own and may not represent the official positions of any of his affiliates.

His latest proposal may be the most extraordinary yet.

Earlier this month, Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX) announced the Ban Artificial Intelligence Act, legislation that would permanently prohibit the development and deployment of artificial superintelligence in the United States. The bill proposes a pause on advanced AI development until Congress creates a new federal regulatory agency that would oversee the emerging technology.

Data center moratoriums to AI bans

Sanders’ new plan is only the latest step in a remarkably aggressive campaign against America’s emerging AI industry.

Back in March, Sanders joined Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) in proposing a federal moratorium on the construction of AI data centers. Sanders has cited concerns about electricity prices, water and land use, job displacement, and the possibility that increasingly advanced AI systems could eventually escape human control.

In June, Sanders introduced legislation that would give the federal government what he described as a 50% public-ownership stake in America’s largest AI companies, establishing something similar to a sovereign wealth fund. The plan would essentially nationalize half of each AI company, giving the government half of the board seats.

The newest proposal is particularly striking because it moves well beyond the environmental concerns that have fueled much of the opposition to data centers. The Ban Artificial Intelligence Act targets advanced AI specifically because of concerns the technology could become too capable.

And to be fair, some of those concerns deserve to be taken seriously.

Recent experiments involving advanced AI systems have produced troubling examples of systems behaving in unexpected ways, circumventing restrictions, and taking actions their developers did not intend nor anticipate. Even the companies building these systems openly acknowledge that increasingly capable AI could pose serious cybersecurity, biological, and societal risks.

These are legitimate concerns that should be acknowledged and addressed by those in this field.

But Sanders leaps from “this technology carries risks” to “Washington should possess the authority to decide when technology progress has gone too far, destroy offending systems, dissolve offending companies, and imprison the people who built them.”

That is an enormous and concerning leap for any government official to make.

When does research become a crime?

Under the proposal, a new Cabinet-level federal agency would be empowered to “supervise the destruction of prohibited artificial superintelligence.” Companies that disobey the law could face what Sanders and Casar call a “corporate death penalty.” Individuals found to be breaking said law could face prison sentences of up to 20 years.

That raises a question Congress should answer before threatening AI researchers with decades behind bars. Under Sanders’ legislation, where exactly does legitimate frontier AI research end and criminal activity begin?

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has been remarkably candid about where he hopes this technology is headed. In an interview with Bloomberg, Altman said, “We are here to build [artificial general intelligence] and superintelligence and all the things that come beyond that.”

Would Sanders’ legislation require Altman to disavow that ambition?

What happens when OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, xAI, or a university research lab develops a system that performs better than humans across an increasing number of domains? At what point does ambitious research become an illegal attempt to create superintelligence?

Those questions become especially important when the consequences include prison or a “corporate death penalty.”

The uncertainty alone could have enormous consequences for America’s position in the global AI race.

Researchers, executives, and investors would have to constantly wonder whether the next breakthrough in AI would constitute a breach of the ill-defined federal restriction. Lawyers and compliance officers would inevitably become part of decisions that today belong primarily to engineers and scientists. This uncertainty alone could cripple this entire technological endeavor.

And that may not be the worst of the outcomes.

Beijing’s likely response

In this environment of increased red tape and confusion in the U.S., China would have every incentive to keep moving.

Sanders’ proposal attempts to solve that problem by directing the U.S. to pursue international agreements preventing the development of superintelligence anywhere in the world.

What happens if Beijing declines to enter such an agreement?

The U.S. could impose severe restrictions on its own researchers, but it cannot guarantee that the Chinese Communist Party will do the same. Even an international agreement would require Washington to trust that China had accurately disclosed classified research and agreed with American regulators about what qualifies as prohibited superintelligence.

China already appears to be exploiting every advantage they have in the AI race.

Earlier this year, OpenAI disrupted what it described as an influence operation likely originating in China that used AI to create social media content criticizing U.S. data centers while posing as Americans.

More recently, X identified roughly 200 accounts linked to a suspected Chinese bot operation attempting to persuade the public to oppose data centers.

Of course, this is not to say all those who oppose data centers and AI are Chinese propagandists, but it does show that China is actively attempting to disrupt the development of this emerging technology in America.

American policymakers should think very carefully before doing Beijing’s bidding.

America cannot regulate its way out of the future

AI is already a massively powerful tool with potential to become even more powerful. Truly dangerous capabilities may require government restrictions. But the U.S. should be extraordinarily reluctant to give Washington, D.C., the power to decide that human technological advancement has reached its government-approved limit.

LEAVE YOUR AI PANIC NEXT TO YESTERDAY’S NUCLEAR POWER OPPOSITION

The U.S. is currently home to many of the world’s leading AI companies, researchers, innovators, and investors. That advantage is enormously valuable, and it is far from guaranteed to last.

We should work to address AI dangers as they manifest without becoming so afraid of the future that we throw it all away.

Donald Kendal (dkendal@heartland.org) is the director of the Emerging Issues Center at The Heartland Institute. Follow @EmergingIssuesX.