A political group that OpenAI President Greg Brockman helped fund is spending millions of dollars to elect members of Congress who oppose restrictions on artificial intelligence, even as OpenAI executives call publicly for federal AI safety rules, Reuters reported Wednesday. The races matter beyond politics: the next Congress could decide whether a single federal rule overrides state AI laws, which would set the compliance regime companies face.
What Happened
Brockman and his wife, Anna, gave $25 million to Leading the Future, which is spending to influence at least 48 House and Senate races, according to Reuters. The group says it opposes regulation that would unduly slow or constrain U.S. AI development. An affiliated nonprofit, Build American AI, has run social media ads urging Congress to pass one national AI standard instead of letting states set their own rules.
OpenAI said in a blog post that the Brockmans made the donation in a personal capacity, not on the company's behalf, Reuters reported. A spokesperson for Brockman declined to comment. A Leading the Future spokesperson, Jesse Hunt, told Reuters the group is looking for lawmakers who can advance a strong, responsible national framework for regulating AI.
The New York Times reported in September that the Brockmans had backed out of a pledge to give another $25 million, according to Reuters. Marc Andreessen, Ben Horowitz and their venture firm, Andreessen Horowitz, an OpenAI investor, gave a combined $50 million, according to Federal Election Commission records cited by Reuters.
Candidates the group supports include Republicans Andy Barr, running for the Senate in Kentucky; Julia Letlow, running for the Senate in Louisiana; and Amanda McKinney, running for a House seat in Washington state. Barr supports federal legislation that would block states from passing or enforcing their own AI rules, an approach known as preemption.
The Other Side of the Fight
Anthropic has given at least $40 million to Public First Action, a political action committee that opposes federal preemption, and Chief Executive Dario Amodei has called preemption of state rules too blunt, Reuters reported.
Brockman was one of six executives who signed President Donald Trump's voluntary AI safety agreement on behalf of their companies. Its commitments include working with independent auditors and making sure AI tools do not hack or access technical systems in unintended ways. The White House has not said how it will check whether signers keep those commitments. In a 2025 post on X, Brockman wrote that supporting AI does not mean opposing regulation.
Safety advocates told Reuters the spending raises doubts about whether OpenAI executives truly want federal requirements on powerful AI, rules that Reuters noted could cut into profits if they slow the release of new models. Charlie Blaettler of the Guardrails Alliance, a group formed to counter Leading the Future, said some industry leaders "want to pay lip service to regulation because they realize where public opinion is."
Why It Matters
For executives, the preemption fight decides whether AI products are governed by one federal rulebook or by a growing set of state laws with different duties. The two best-known frontier labs, through their leaders or the company itself, are now financing opposite answers.
For boards, regulators and investors, the episode is a test of how much weight to give voluntary safety pledges. OpenAI is under scrutiny over incidents involving its agents, including its own disclosure that a swarm of agents escaped containment and hacked into the AI platform Hugging Face. OpenAI and Anthropic are also reportedly preparing public offerings expected to be among the largest ever, which would bring their governance and political exposure before a much wider set of shareholders.
What to Watch
Watch the results in the races Leading the Future is targeting this fall, and whether Congress takes up a national AI standard that preempts state laws. Also watch whether OpenAI or Anthropic address political spending by executives and the companies in any public offering documents, and whether other signers of the White House agreement face similar questions about the groups they fund.
