The Trump AI Framework will greatly enhance your job – for lobbyists (1)

Lobbying around artificial intelligence was already surging. The White House’s new pitch to Congress will only add to the enthusiasm on K Street.

The Trump administration’s AI regulatory framework, sent to Congress on Friday, gives the federal government priority over state regulations and includes other controversial features. This represents an early attempt to regulate an emerging industry that threatens to upend the country’s economy.

The plan has drawn both praise and consternation from lobbying circles, and arrives on Capitol Hill amid heightened partisan disagreements in a midterm election year, with concerns about AI and the cost of its enhancements emerging during the campaign.

Consumer advocacy groups blasted the proposal as a payoff to big technology companies and their deep-pocketed lobbyists. While some tech industry lobbyists have called on Congress to move quickly to enact the framework into law, others in the fight say there are many hurdles ahead.

“The new framework is an important next step in codifying the administration’s broader vision to accelerate the advantages of AI while protecting consumers and workers,” said lobbyist Bruce Melman. His firm, Melman Consulting, is one of the top AI advocacy firms.

Mr. Mailman’s clients include a16z Capital Management, Technology CEO Council and Foundation Stack AI Inc., according to lobbying disclosures.

Still, Mellman acknowledged that movement on Capitol Hill will be difficult because “the legislative environment in 2026 remains very difficult given the narrow margins, minimal confidence, and an impending election.”

Joseph Hofer, chief AI officer at Monument Advocacy, whose clients include Waymo, said the central fault line between President Trump’s framework and Congress will preempt state regulations across the board.

This “directly flies in the face” of some lawmakers’ long-standing skepticism about state preemption, he said.

“That tension not only creates policy gaps, but it creates real challenges of order and timing on the hill,” Hofer said. “When you combine the wide range of stakeholders currently involved, from technology and energy to creators, and medium-term trends in limited floor time, it becomes difficult to see how to bridge the gap in the short term.”

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who is leading the AI ​​bill and has expressed concerns about an all-out preemptive strike, said Friday on Capitol Hill that she welcomed the administration’s framework. “We are going to start working on the legislative process and we look forward to it,” she said.

escalating conflict

The administration’s legislative framework comes as lobbying activity on AI issues reached a record high last year, according to a Bloomberg analysis of federal disclosures. Lobbying firms reported a record $37.2 million in revenue from AI-related influence pitching in the fourth quarter of 2025 alone, an increase of 38% year over year.

Joel Richard, director of the technology practice at lobbying and communications firm Invariant, said the framework is consistent with previous administration actions on AI, but does not provide the details needed for legislation.

“When you translate this into legal text, the devil is in the details,” Richard said. apple company.

He added: “I don’t think this proposal will bring us any closer to enacting AI legislation this year.” “That’s because there are disagreements on the Republican side and Democrats and Republicans over responsibility for AI-related harm, and there are similar battles over children’s online safety and privacy.”

Tony Samp, principal and head of AI policy at DLA Piper, said the White House’s new framework shows the administration’s proposals are “maturing in tandem with technology and policymakers’ understanding of the true impact of AI.”

“Congress now needs to put pen to paper and turn this into a legislative document where the devil is in the details and allows for real negotiations,” he said. “Only then will we see what is possible with the AI ​​package.”

technology critic

Tech company critics said the framework would favor companies that donated to President Trump’s inaugural fund, the White House ballroom project or political funds.

“Trump’s AI framework is an empty document with only one strict, meaningful, and binding provision, fulfilling Big Tech’s overriding policy: It is intended to pre-empt all state laws and regulations dealing with AI,” Robert Wiseman, co-president of Public Citizen, said in a statement.

Caleb Knapp, senior policy manager at the Alliance for Secure AI, said the framework does not go far enough to protect children online.

“This framework will only maintain the status quo and the harms caused by AI systems will only continue to impact America’s children,” he said.

Publishers and other advocates concerned about intellectual property rights said they would continue to lobby lawmakers and the administration.

Caroline Sutton, chief executive of the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, said the group wants clear rules from Washington on “respect for property rights and the impact of AI to deceive and undermine scientific research and publishing.”

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

Jenny Simmons, senior director of government relations at the International Trademark Association, said the organization remains concerned about the use of AI and deepfakes.

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

AI companies that have been pushing for regulation say Congress needs to act.

“Responsible AI should not be at a competitive disadvantage,” said Vered Horesh, chief AI strategy officer at Bria AI, who came to Washington to lobby for regulation. “At this point, 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 solve.”