Congress, Not Big Tech or the President, Should Lead the AI Regulation Debate
Source: "HUGH HEWITT: Spare us the AI apocalypse talk. Big Tech doesn't write our laws | Fox News." September 15, 2026. www.foxnews.com
The Gist
Hugh Hewitt argues that with tech CEOs flip-flopping between 'AI will kill us all' and 'don't worry,' regular people can't tell what's true—and that's exactly why we shouldn't let those same CEOs, or even the President acting alone, decide how AI gets regulated. Instead, he says Congress's intelligence committees, made up of respected lawmakers, should investigate, deliberate, and decide whether new AI laws are needed, especially given competition with China.
Conclusion
President Trump should refrain from unilateral executive action on AI regulation and instead let Congress—specifically the Senate and House Intelligence Committees—lead the debate and decide what statutory or regulatory response, if any, is appropriate.
Premises
- The AI safety debate is highly technical and poorly understood by the public, unlike past national security debates (e.g., the Cold War, Ukraine, Israel-Hamas) which citizens could reasonably follow and understand.
- Tech industry leaders (Amodei, Altman, Musk, Hassabis) publicly calling for a slowdown may be motivated by self-interest rather than pure safety concerns, as suggested by David Sacks' critique that they want cartel-like protections (antitrust exemptions, liability shields) rather than genuine oversight.
- Americans have a longstanding distrust of allowing powerful corporate titans to dictate the laws that govern them.
- The U.S. is a republic of laws where private-sector actions are presumed legal until proven otherwise, reflecting a free-market default that shouldn't be overridden by corporate lobbying dressed as safety concern.
- Congress already has dedicated, credentialed bodies (Senate and House Intelligence Committees) with subject-matter respect from both parties, making them well-suited to investigate and deliberate on AI policy.
- Geopolitical competition with China (Xi Jinping) means the U.S. cannot afford self-imposed slowdowns, since China will not observe such restraint—making executive-branch overreach or premature regulation strategically risky.
Assumptions
- Congressional committees, given time and staff support, are capable of adequately understanding and regulating a fast-moving technical domain like AI.
- Tech CEOs' warnings about AI risk are at least partly (or primarily) self-interested rather than sincere safety concerns.
- Legislative deliberation is inherently more legitimate and trustworthy than executive or industry-led action in this context.
- Delaying regulatory action until after congressional hearings and midterms will not itself create unacceptable risk.
- The free-market/rule-of-law framework (legal until proven illegal) is the correct default posture for emerging technologies like AI.
- China's AI ambitions justify prioritizing competitive speed over precautionary regulation.