Staff Reports
Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Greg Casar rolled out a headline-grabbing “Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act” meant to sound tough on runaway technology. But recent reporting shows a London-based campaign group called ControlAI drafted a near-identical bill for the U.K. and says it “consulted on” the U.S. proposal. That raises a basic question: who actually wrote the law that could reshape American innovation — and why didn’t we hear that up front?
ControlAI wrote the U.K. bill — and consulted on the U.S. draft
Here’s the plain fact: ControlAI publicly says it drafted the U.K. Artificial Superintelligence Security Bill and also provided briefings and a discussion draft that informed the U.S. Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act. The U.K. bill was introduced in Parliament by a Labour MP, and ControlAI has named staff who now run its U.S. arm and who briefed congressional offices. That “consulted on” language matters — consults can mean anything from a friendly chat to handing over exact statutory text. Congress should tell voters which it was.
Why this foreign hand in American AI policy should worry you
Policy ideas crossing borders is normal. What isn’t normal is importing a draft that reflects another country’s long-standing regulatory instincts — the same instincts that critics say have slowed British tech growth — and then using it to rewrite American law without clear disclosure. The Sanders/Casar proposal adopts sweeping language, broad definitions of “superintelligence,” and severe penalties that could sweep in ordinary innovation. If our lawmakers lean on a London-crafted template, we risk trading American competition and risk-taking for a one-size-fits-all ban that suits activist donors and nervous pundits more than entrepreneurs.
Who is ControlAI, and who funds it?
ControlAI is run by organizers who openly promote bans on “superintelligent” AI. Its U.S. director is publicly identified, and one of its known backers is a well‑known tech investor with past ties to frontier AI labs. That link — investor ties to labs plus advocacy funding — deserves scrutiny. Voters have a right to know whether policy is driven by public interest or by outside funders who prefer regulation that helps their agenda. “Consulted on” is not the full story unless congressional offices produce the drafts and correspondence that justify that claim.
What Senator Sanders and Representative Casar owe the public
If lawmakers want to rewrite how America builds critical technology, they must be transparent. Sanders and Casar should disclose who provided model language, whether they received a full statutory draft from ControlAI or any other outside group, and what role — if any — funders had in shaping the text. Americans shouldn’t be lectured on protecting the nation from foreign threats while welcoming foreign-written legislation to govern our own labs. Let there be a public debate, not a backroom handoff. If Congress is serious about AI policy, it should hold hearings, show the drafts, and debate consequences — not outsource our future to a London think tank and expect no one to ask questions.
