Trump AI Framework Will Supercharge Work—for Lobbyists (1)

Lobbying on artificial intelligence was already surging — the White House’s new pitch to Congress will only add more intensity on K Street.

The Trump administration’s AI regulatory framework, sent to Congress on Friday, calls for federal preemption of state regulations, plus other controversial matters. It represents an early attempt at regulating the nascent industry that threatens to upend the nation’s economy.

The plan is drawing both praise and consternation from the lobbying sector and arrives on a Capitol Hill gripped with escalating partisan disagreement in a midterm election year, with AI concerns and the costs of powering it cropping up on the campaign trail.

Consumer advocates blasted the proposal as a giveaway to large technology firms and their well-funded lobbyists. Some tech industry lobbyists called on Congress to move swiftly to enact the framework in legislation, while others in the fight said many hurdles loom ahead.

“The new framework offers an important next step towards codifying the administration’s broad vision for accelerating AI dominance while protecting consumers and workers,” said lobbyist Bruce Mehlman, whose firm Mehlman Consulting is among the top firms doing AI-related advocacy.

Mehlman’s clients include a16z Capital Management, the Technology CEO Council, and Foundation Stack AI Inc., lobbying disclosures show.

Still, Mehlman acknowledged, it will be tough to move on Capitol Hill as “the 2026 legislative environment remains immensely challenging given tiny margins, minimal trust, and imminent elections.”

Joseph Hoefer, chief AI officer at Monument Advocacy, whose clients include Waymo, said a central fault line between the Trump framework and Congress will be sweeping preemption of state regulations.

It “runs headfirst” into longstanding skepticism of overriding states from some lawmakers, he said.

“That tension doesn’t just create a policy gap, it creates a real sequencing and timing challenge on the Hill,” Hoefer said. “Layer in limited floor time, the breadth of stakeholders now engaged, from tech and energy to creators, and the midterm dynamics, and it becomes difficult to see how you bridge that divide in the near term.”

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who is running for governor this fall, has had concerns about sweeping federal preemption.

Photographer: Ting Shen/Bloomberg

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who is taking a leading role in AI legislation and has raised concerns about sweeping preemption, said Friday on Capitol Hill that she welcomed the administration’s framework. “We’ll begin to work through the legislative process and looking forward to it,” she said.

Escalating Clashes

The administration’s legislative framework comes as lobbying over AI issues reached an all-time high last year, a Bloomberg Government analysis of federal disclosures found. Lobbying firms reported a record $37.2 million in earnings from AI-related influence peddling in the fourth quarter of 2025 alone, a 38% jump from a year earlier.

Joel Richard, who chairs the tech practice at lobbying and communications firm Invariant, said the framework was consistent with previous administration moves on AI but doesn’t offer specifics needed to legislate.

“Translating that into legislative text, the devil’s going to be in the details,” said Richard, whose clients include Apple Inc.

“I don’t think this proposal moves us closer to getting AI legislation enacted this year,” he added. “That is because there are differences of opinion on the Republican side and then between Democrats and Republicans on liability for AI-related harms, and then there are similar struggles on kids’ online safety and privacy.”

Tony Samp, a principal and head of AI policy at DLA Piper, said the new White House framework showed the administration’s proposals had “matured alongside the technology and policymakers’ understanding of the real impacts of AI.”

“Congress will now need to put pen to paper and turn it into legislative text where the devil is in the details and actual negotiations can happen,” he said. “Only then will we know what’s in the realm of possible for an AI package.”

Tech Critics

Tech company critics said the framework amounted to a favor for companies that had donated to Trump’s inaugural fund, the White House ballroom project, or political coffers.

“Trump’s AI framework is a hollow document with only one tough and meaningfully binding provision, delivering Big Tech’s top policy priority: It aims to preempt all state laws and rules dealing with AI,” said Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, in a statement.

The framework doesn’t do enough to protect children online, said Caleb Knapp, senior policy manager at the Alliance for Secure AI.

“This framework does nothing more than preserve the status quo, while the harms posed by AI systems will only continue to impact America’s children,” he said.

Advocates for publishers and others with concerns about intellectual property rights said they would continue reaching out to lawmakers and the administration.

Caroline Sutton, chief executive of the International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers, said her group is seeking clear rules from Washington on “respect for property rights, and consequences for AI that defrauds and undermines scientific research and publishing.”

Sutton said STM members will push lawmakers “to get it right and regulate AI with laws that promote the voluntary licensing of vetted, verifiable science so that AI can drive discovery forward.”

Jenny Simmons, senior director for government relations at the International Trademark Association, said her group is still concerned about the use of AI and deep fakes.

“Brand owners need clearly articulated policies that work cooperatively with trademark law,” she said in a statement.

AI companies that have pushed for regulations said Congress needs to act.

“Responsible AI shouldn’t be a competitive disadvantage,” said Vered Horesh, chief AI strategy officer at Bria AI, who has come to Washington to lobby for regulations. “Right now, developers who cut corners on IP and safety can move faster than those who don’t.”

She added: “That’s the problem Congress needs to fix.”