SB 53, the AIĀ safetyĀ and transparencyĀ billĀ that CaliforniaĀ Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law this week, is proof that state regulationĀ doesnātĀ have to hinder AI progress.Ā Ā
So saysĀ Adam Billen, vice president of public policy at youth-led advocacy group Encode AI,Ā on todayās episode of Equity.Ā
āThe reality is that policy makers themselves know that we have to do something, and they know from working on a million other issues that there is a way to pass legislation that genuinely does protect innovationĀ āĀ which I do care aboutĀ āĀ while making sure that these products are safe,ā Billen told TechCrunch.Ā
At its core,Ā SBĀ 53 is aĀ first-in-the-nation billĀ thatĀ requires large AI labs to be transparent about their safety and security protocolsĀ ā specifically around how they prevent their models from catastrophic risks, like being used to commitĀ cyberattacksĀ on critical infrastructure or buildĀ bio-weapons.Ā The law also mandates that companies stick to those protocols, which will be enforced by the Office of Emergency Services.Ā Ā
āCompanies are already doing the stuff that we ask them to do in this bill,ā BillenĀ told TechCrunch. āThey do safety testing on their models. They release model cards. Are they starting to skimp in some areas at some companies? Yes. And thatās why bills like this are important.āĀ
Billen also noted thatĀ some AI firms have a policy around relaxing safety standards under competitive pressure. OpenAI, for example, hasĀ publicly statedĀ that itĀ may āadjustā its safety requirementsĀ if a rival AI lab releases a high-risk system without similar safeguards.Ā Billen argues that policy can enforce companiesā existing safety promises, preventing them from cutting corners under competitive or financial pressure.Ā
While public opposition to SB 53 was muted inĀ comparison to its predecessor SB 1047, whichĀ Newsom vetoed last year, the rhetoric in Silicon Valley and among most AI labs has been that almost anyĀ AIĀ regulation is anathema to progress and willĀ ultimately hinderĀ the U.S. in its race to beat China.Ā Ā
Techcrunch event
San Francisco
|
October 27-29, 2025
Itās why companies like Meta, VCs like Andreessen Horowitz, and powerful individuals like OpenAI president Greg Brockman are collectively pumping hundreds of millions into super PACs to back pro-AI politicians in state elections. AndĀ itāsĀ why those same forces earlier this year pushed for anĀ AI moratoriumĀ that would have banned states from regulating AI for 10 years.Ā Ā
Encode AI ran a coalition of more than 200 organizations to work toĀ strike down the proposal, but Billen says the fightĀ isnātĀ over. Senator Ted Cruz, who championed the moratorium, isĀ attemptingĀ a new strategy to achieve the same goal of federal preemption of state laws. In September, Cruz introduced theĀ SANDBOX Act, which would allow AI companies to apply for waivers to temporarily bypass certain federal regulations for up to 10 years. Billen also anticipates a forthcoming bill establishing a federal AI standardĀ that would be pitched as a middle-groundĀ solution butĀ would in realityĀ override state laws.Ā
He warned that narrowly scopedĀ federal AI legislation could ādelete federalism for the most important technology of our time.āĀ
āIf you told me SB 53 was the bill that would replace all the state bills on everything related to AI and all of the potential risks, I would tell you thatās probably not a very good idea and that this bill is designed for a particular subset of things,ā Billen said.Ā Ā

While he agrees that the AI race with China matters, and that policymakers need to enact regulation that will support American progress, he says killing state billsĀ ā whichĀ mainly focus on deepfakes, transparency, algorithmic discrimination, childrenās safety, and governmental use of AI ā isnāt the way to go about doing that.Ā
āAre bills like SB 53 the thing that will stop us from beating China? No,ā he said. āI think itĀ is just genuinely intellectually dishonest to say that that is the thing that will stop us in the race.āĀ
He added:Ā āIf the thing you care about is beating China in the race on AI ā and I do care about that ā then the things you would push for are stuff like export controls in Congress,ā Billen said. āYou would make sure that American companies have theĀ chips. ButĀ thatāsĀ not what the industry is pushing for.āĀ
Legislative proposals like theĀ Chip Security ActĀ aim to prevent the diversion of advanced AI chips to China through export controls and tracking devices, and the existingĀ CHIPS and Science ActĀ seeksĀ to boost domestic chip production. However, some major tech companies, including OpenAI and Nvidia, have expressed reluctance orĀ oppositionĀ to certain aspects of these efforts, citing concerns about effectiveness, competitiveness, and security vulnerabilities.Ā Ā
Nvidia has its reasons ā it has a strong financial incentive to continue selling chips to China, which has historicallyĀ representedĀ a significant portionĀ of its global revenue.Ā BillenĀ speculatedĀ that OpenAI could hold back on chip export advocacy to stay in the good graces of crucial suppliers like Nvidia.Ā
ThereāsĀ also been inconsistent messaging fromĀ the Trump administration. Three months after expanding an export banĀ on advanced AI chips to ChinaĀ in April 2025, the administration reversed course, allowingĀ Nvidia and AMD to sell some chips to China inĀ exchange for 15% of the revenue.Ā
āYou see people on the Hill moving towards bills like the Chip Security Act that would put export controls on China,ā Billen said. āIn the meantime,Ā thereās going to continue to be this propping upĀ ofĀ the narrative to kill state bills that areĀ actually quiteĀ light tough.āĀ
BillenĀ addedĀ that SB 53 is an example of democracy in action ā of industry and policymakers working together to get to a version of a bill that everyone can agree on.Ā ItāsĀ āvery ugly and messy,ā but āthat process of democracy and federalism is the entire foundation of our country and our economic system, and I hope that we will keep doing that successfully.āĀ
āI think SB 53 is one of the best proof points that that can still work,ā he said.
This article was first published on October 1.