News: 0183437244

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

Trump Loses More Control Over AI Regulation As Illinois Passes Landmark Law

(Thursday May 28, 2026 @05:00PM (BeauHD) from the pushing-the-feds-to-act dept.)


Illinois lawmakers on Wednesday [1]passed a landmark AI safety bill ( [2]SB 315 ) that would require major AI companies to publish safety plans, submit annual third-party testing reports, report serious incidents quickly, and protect whistleblowers who flag emerging risks. OpenAI and Anthropic supported the bill, which could make Illinois a testing ground for state-level AI governance as federal regulation [3]remains stalled . Ars Technica reports:

> To force companies to be more transparent about rapid developments, Illinois would likely rely on "the Big Four accounting and auditing firms -- Deloitte, EY, KPMG, and PwC -- to audit their safety practices," [said Scott Wisor, a policy director at a nonprofit called Secure AI Project, which supported the bill]. The required independent audits will likely frustrate Trump, who has tried and failed to stop states from implementing AI safety laws as Congress stalls on passing any legislation.

>

> For Trump, the priority has been to promote AI industry interests, but he began considering expanding federal government safety testing after Anthropic's Mythos was [4]released and the AI firm limited access due to safety concerns. Whether or not governments at any level are prepared to protect society from the most catastrophic AI risks remains a major concern for critics who wonder how and when governments will intervene. After inside sources started leaking the details of Trump's AI safety testing plans, critics warned that even the federal government may lack the necessary expertise to audit frontier AI models. And it seems the same criticism extends to independent auditors that Illinois may rely on but industry insiders suggest some AI firms may not entirely trust.

>

> Adam Kovacevich is CEO of Chamber of Progress, a trade group that opposed SB 315 and counts Google and Apple among its members. He [5]told Wired that Illinois' requirements "would force companies to expose sensitive systems to untested auditors in a regulatory regime that's all liability and no standards."

Governor J.B. Pritzker confirmed his intent to sign, proclaiming that "Illinois is leading the nation in holding Big Tech accountable."

"I look forward to signing SB 315 and working with the legislature so that AI, when used, is used responsibly," Pritzker said.

Steve Wimmer, a senior policy and technical advisor for the Transparency Coalition, [6]said his group considers the law to be "one of the most important pieces of legislation in 2026."



[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/05/trump-loses-more-control-over-ai-regulation-as-illinois-passes-landmark-law/

[2] https://legiscan.com/IL/bill/SB0315/2025

[3] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/05/21/2034246/trump-calls-off-ai-executive-order-over-concern-it-could-weaken-us-tech-edge

[4] https://it.slashdot.org/story/26/04/07/2115208/anthropic-unveils-claude-mythos-powerful-ai-with-major-cyber-implications

[5] https://www.wired.com/story/openai-chris-lehane-global-affairs-pr/

[6] https://www.transparencycoalition.ai/news/illinois-lawmakers-send-significant-ai-frontier-model-safety-bill-to-gov-pritzker



States Rights! (Score:3, Insightful)

by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

Oh wait are we for or against states rights on this? Better see what Fox has to say.

Re: (Score:2)

by ambrandt12 ( 6486220 )

And, of course, this only works until AI replaces the meat-sacks at those firms.

While, yes, some kind of regulation aimed at AI is a good thing, I'm not sure it'll last longer than five minutes... I bet the AI outfits will find some workaround or loophole so they don't have to report anything.

Middle ground? (Score:2)

by Himmy32 ( 650060 )

If the biggest firms support a policy, there should be wary eye on regulatory capture.

Likewise doesn't take too many cases of AI psychosis to realize that the technology might need safeguards.

Hopefully we can find some reasonable middle grounds between brain-rotted Gen Alphas with AI waifus teaching them forbidden knowledge and a bureaucratic hellscape of soul sucking auditors.

Re: (Score:2)

by larwe ( 858929 )

Both the extremes you mention, and the middle ground between, are merely different flavors of chaos. I've written a bunch of substack articles on related topics (example [1]https://larwe.substack.com/p/w... [substack.com] ), and after all the neuron activity I've performed on this, I'm pretty convinced that "AI" cannot be controlled in the manner that legislators would like. It will always be vulnerable to attack chain type behavior. Look no further than Multivac (also [2]https://larwe.substack.com/p/m... [substack.com] :) ) and "All the Trou

[1] https://larwe.substack.com/p/what-if-one-of-us-was-god

[2] https://larwe.substack.com/p/multivac-was-the-optimistic-scenario

The cynic in me (Score:2)

by larwe ( 858929 )

... which is basically 97.625% of my body by weight, says that the reason the big companies support this legislation is because they have already figured out how to comply with it without affecting their business model or roadmap. In other words, this legislation is a paper tiger - either it has been worded in such a way as to leave important loopholes, or (even more likely, and not mutually exclusive) the big AI players know that their _products_ cannot be analyzed, at least not in finite time, and not by

Irony (Score:3)

by jythie ( 914043 )

These companies just love 'move fast and break things', unless the moving fast might break their things.

By their own logic, we should regulate now and work out problems later.

Supremacy Clause of Constitution says otherwise... (Score:3)

by drnb ( 2434720 )

> Trump Loses More Control Over AI Regulation As Illinois Passes Landmark Law

Not really, the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution says that federal law supersedes state law when in conflict. Then there is the Commerce Clause that says the federal government gets to regulate things with foreign nations and between the states. State regulations would have to be in areas the federal does not address, and be subject to being overridden by the fed at any time.

Re: (Score:2)

by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

If one side doesn't have to follow laws, why does the other?

Re: (Score:2)

by drnb ( 2434720 )

> If one side doesn't have to follow laws, why does the other?

You falsely conflate working the system with not following federal law. Trump may talk tough, he might engage is lawsuits and legal appeals and a host of other slick things lawyers come up with to delay, but after exhausting such legal options he has a history of compliance.

gets popcorn (Score:2)

by oldgraybeard ( 2939809 )

This is going to be fun to watch! They got Trump woo hoo! And the big AI companies OpenAI, Anthropic are on board because this is a huge barrier to entry.

Now we will see what the other 49 states plus the territories all pass. Just think, tens of thousands of new agentic jobs filling out the required regulatory paperwork no one will ever look at.

Wait, the AI agents will be reviewing things, me bad ;)

Re: (Score:2)

by oldgraybeard ( 2939809 )

Sure glad I'm in the automation business and not the AI business.

the xy axis in the trackball is coordinated with the summer soltice