Doug Calidas

Head of advocacy at @americans4ri |
Tech Policy Fellow, Harvard's @BelferCenter |
Former Senate Chief of Staff
Proud father of four children, two cats & one dog

[Doug Calidas @DougCalidas]

Earlier this week, industry leaders and Republicans of all stripes praised President Trump’s AI Executive Order. It’s easy to see why - with the major risks AI presents (along with exciting opportunities), visibility into frontier models is critical. Those who would have minimized these risks just a year ago now recognize them openly. And the technology is only improving (rapidly).

Meanwhile, the valuations of AI companies continue to skyrocket.

So riddle me this - why is a (still theoretical) “50 state patchwork” still a nightmare? Investors clearly do not worry about this or else the valuations would slip. They’re not, at all.

So why do Hill Republicans and even some Democrats keep trotting this out? Because it’s habit at this point?

[Doug Calidas @DougCalidas]

Great reporting. This confirms what we’ve heard all along but never seen reported - that Speaker Mike Johnson is directing the Obernolte-Trahan effort.

That’s good news for Obernolte - hats off to him. But Trahan? Seriously? This is an embarrassment for Democratic leadership. I know it’s hard to be in the minority, but you don’t gain any respect by losing control of your caucus. Come on.

[Doug Calidas @DougCalidas]

Correction - this reporting is from Politico’s Meredith Lee Hill, not Punchbowl.

[Doug Calidas @DougCalidas]

Punchbowl reporting that Speaker Mike Johnson is directing the Obernolte-Trahan effort.

That’s good news for Obernolte - hats off to him. But Trahan? Seriously? This is an embarrassment for Democratic leadership. I know it’s hard to be in the minority, but you don’t gain any respect by losing control of your caucus. Come on.

[Doug Calidas @DougCalidas]

This is the dynamic that makes AI politics fundamentally different from most other areas of policy. For those just tuning in, this dynamic will only become more pronounced in the coming years.

To paraphrase Jim Mattis/Clausewitz/Sun Tzu — the technology gets a vote.

[Shakeel @ShakeelHashim]

Trump’s AI executive order shows what AI safety advocates have argued all along: you can’t not regulate AI. Sufficiently capable models force national security responses, turning even the most ardent opponents of regulation into begrudging regulators.

It's a huge blow for opponents to regulation. The accelerationists got the most sympathetic administration imaginable, and a direct line to POTUS. But what the models could do mattered more than anything they could.

[Doug Calidas @DougCalidas]

@dkaushik96 @americans4ri Or just take the Obernolte/Trahan bill and add preemption for cybersecurity. That’s defensible - it flows from the substantive scope of the bill rather than just being a trade.

[Doug Calidas @DougCalidas]

@americans4ri has a wide range of proposals we’ve put out, any of which we’d be proud to see enacted.

Here’s one idea - take the Obernolte/Trahan bill, cut the preemption provision, and push it through. We’d put all our muscle behind it.

The concept that we have to start with “what can pass” and then work backward is something we fundamentally disagree with. I respect the fact that you likely disagree on this.

Sadly, the deal space right now seems to require broad preemption to get more than token Republican support, and that’s not worth it. Bad legislation can do a lot of harm; oftentimes, waiting is the best possible option even if it’s uncomfortable and not what we’d prefer. But we’re not going to take a bad deal just to get a deal.

So the current set of net-positive legislation that can pass under the current government may be a null set. Even small-ball bills like NAIRR and whistleblower protections are being held in abeyance as chits for preemption.

[Doug Calidas @DougCalidas]

@Kierkegaarddd Works of Love by Soren Kierkegaard

[Doug Calidas @DougCalidas]

@Kierkegaarddd Orthodoxy by Chesterton

[Doug Calidas @DougCalidas]

@lsanger @micsolana @PirateWires I’ll read any letter that begins by channeling Mark Antony

[Doug Calidas @DougCalidas]

I no longer know what’s AI slop and what’s not. I think this is real. Either way, I like it.

[We don't deserve cats 😺 @catsareblessing]

"What is the meaning of life? Why was I put on this Earth? When will my next meal come?"

[Doug Calidas @DougCalidas]

It’s funny how certain words enter the zeitgeist. I don’t think I heard the terms “weaponize” or “weaponization” more than a handful of times until just a few years ago. Now it’s hard to avoid it.

[Doug Calidas @DougCalidas]

https://t.co/2QwEnqQLqS

[Doug Calidas @DougCalidas]

All the polling points in one direction. Americans overwhelmingly want more regulation of AI.

From Penta Group’s report - What June 2 Tells Us About AI in the Next Congress - released earlier today:

“This data, from our most recent 2026 survey, shows AI as far and away the top issue cited as ‘in the greatest need of additional federal regulation.’”

[Brad Carson @bradrcarson]

This is an interesting presser from OAI. They distance themselves from LTF. What they don't engage with is that LTF is the brainchild of their Head of Global Affairs. It's not like some random employee contributing to some cause; LTF was formed in the C-suite of OAI. Brockman was induced to give, but Lehane created LTF.
https://t.co/qYmHvOptyB

[Americans for Responsible Innovation @americans4ri]

Union leaders are speaking out against AI law preemption.

Writing for @adndotcom, an Alaska flight attendant shares her message: AK has a history of leading on labor protections. Congress can't strip states of that power and hand Big Tech a free pass.

https://t.co/Y5uRQpsuGg

[Doug Calidas @DougCalidas]

Also, not to get pedantic, but the House AI Task Force report was a bit of a Frankenstein that resulted from series of trades.

The Democrats didn’t want the preemption chapter at all but let it in as a trade for Republicans allowing the chapter on civil rights (which no Republican task force member supports right now). The task force was deadlocked and almost disbanded before they made this grand bargain.

This is all normal politics. The upshot is that you’re right that the preemption chapter was part of the final report - there’s no denying that. But it’s not evidence of Members’ individual positions.

[Doug Calidas @DougCalidas]

Correct. The ad doesn’t run if she’s working with another Republican, on a bill (the Great American AI Act) that includes broad preemption with no substantive federal framework (only process checks).

FWIW, I like Rep. Obernolte. He’s a likable Member and a super smart guy, but has a worldview regarding government’s role in regulating industry that is fundamentally different from that of any Democrat I know. His bill cannot be the starting point for any good-faith negotiations.

The fact that there is daylight between him and other key Republicans (e.g., Sacks and Scalise) is not evidence that his view is where we should be. It’s just evidence that Sacks and Scalise are ideologically opposed to any moderation at all, even strategic moderation that would serve their ultimate interests.