SB 53, the AI safety and transparency legislation recently enacted by California Governor Gavin Newsom, demonstrates that state-level oversight can coexist with AI innovation.
That’s the perspective of Adam Billen, who serves as vice president of public policy at the youth-driven advocacy group Encode AI, as discussed on today’s episode of Equity.
“The truth is, lawmakers recognize the need for action, and their experience with countless other policy areas shows it’s possible to craft laws that genuinely safeguard innovation—which I care about—while ensuring these technologies are safe,” Billen explained to TechCrunch.
Essentially, SB 53 is a pioneering law in the U.S. that obligates major AI developers to disclose their safety and security measures—particularly regarding how they guard against severe threats, such as their models being used for cyberattacks on vital infrastructure or the creation of biological weapons. The statute also requires companies to adhere to these protocols, with enforcement handled by the Office of Emergency Services.
“The practices we’re asking for in this legislation are already being followed by many companies,” Billen told TechCrunch. “They conduct safety evaluations on their models and publish model cards. Are there instances where some firms are cutting corners? Yes, and that’s exactly why laws like this matter.”
Billen further pointed out that certain AI companies have policies that allow for loosening safety requirements when facing competitive threats. For instance, OpenAI has openly said it might “adjust” its safety standards if a competitor launches a high-risk system without equivalent protections. Billen believes that policy can help ensure firms honor their safety commitments, preventing them from compromising under market or financial pressures.
Although public resistance to SB 53 was less intense than it was for its predecessor, SB 1047—which Newsom vetoed last year—many in Silicon Valley and within AI labs maintain that nearly any form of AI regulation will stifle progress and ultimately put the U.S. at a disadvantage against China.
This is why corporations like Meta, investors such as Andreessen Horowitz, and influential figures like OpenAI president Greg Brockman are collectively investing hundreds of millions in super PACs to support pro-AI candidates in state races. It’s also why these same interests previously advocated for an AI moratorium that would have blocked states from regulating AI for a decade.
Encode AI led a coalition of over 200 groups to help defeat that proposal, but Billen says the battle isn’t finished. Senator Ted Cruz, who supported the moratorium, is now pursuing a different approach to achieve federal preemption over state AI laws. In September, Cruz introduced the SANDBOX Act, which would let AI firms seek waivers to temporarily sidestep certain federal rules for up to ten years. Billen also expects a new bill proposing a federal AI standard, which will be marketed as a compromise but would, in effect, override state regulations.
He cautioned that narrowly tailored federal AI laws could “erase federalism for the most significant technology of our era.”
“If you told me SB 53 was meant to replace every state law on AI and all associated risks, I’d say that’s not a good plan—this bill is tailored for a specific set of issues,” Billen remarked.
Adam Billen, vice president of public policy, Encode AI
Image Credits:Encode AI
While Billen acknowledges the importance of the AI competition with China and the need for regulations that foster American advancement, he argues that eliminating state laws—which primarily address deepfakes, transparency, algorithmic bias, child safety, and government AI use—is not the solution.
“Will measures like SB 53 prevent us from surpassing China? Absolutely not,” he said. “Claiming otherwise is, in my view, simply not intellectually honest.”
He continued: “If your priority is winning the AI race against China—and I share that concern—then you’d advocate for things like Congressional export controls,” Billen said. “You’d ensure U.S. companies have access to the necessary chips. But that’s not what the industry is lobbying for.”
Legislation such as the Chip Security Act is designed to stop advanced AI chips from being diverted to China by implementing export controls and tracking, while the CHIPS and Science Act aims to strengthen domestic chip manufacturing. However, some leading tech firms, including OpenAI and Nvidia, have voiced reservations or outright opposition to certain parts of these initiatives, citing worries about their effectiveness, competitiveness, and potential security risks.
Nvidia, for example, has a strong financial motive to keep selling chips to China, which has long been a major source of its global income. Billen speculated that OpenAI might be hesitant to push for chip export restrictions to maintain good relations with key suppliers like Nvidia.
There has also been mixed messaging from the Trump administration. Just three months after expanding an export ban on advanced AI chips to China in April 2025, the administration reversed its stance, permitting Nvidia and AMD to sell certain chips to China in return for 15% of the revenue.
“You see lawmakers moving toward proposals like the Chip Security Act to impose export controls on China,” Billen said. “Meanwhile, there’s a continued effort to push the narrative that state-level AI bills—which are actually quite modest—should be scrapped.”
Billen also emphasized that SB 53 exemplifies democracy at work—where industry and lawmakers collaborate to shape legislation that garners broad support. While the process is “messy and imperfect,” he said, “that kind of democratic and federalist process is the bedrock of our nation and economy, and I hope we continue to uphold it.”
“In my opinion, SB 53 stands as one of the clearest examples that this approach can still succeed,” he said.
This article was originally published on October 1.
