The United States has no unified national AI policy, and senior communications regulators say one isn't coming anytime soon. At a symposium hosted by the Multicultural Media Telecom and Internet Council (MMTC) in Washington, DC, former Federal Communications Commission (FCC) leaders and sitting FCC Commissioner Olivia Trusty discussed why Congress is unlikely to pass comprehensive AI legislation, and what that regulatory vacuum means for companies and consumers.

Why Is Comprehensive AI Legislation Stalled in Congress?

The short answer: political gridlock and competing interests. Former FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell observed that the FCC's direct authority over AI remains extremely limited, and he argued that Congress should enact comprehensive AI and privacy legislation. However, he acknowledged that the prospects for passing such a law are dim.

Former Commissioner Michael O'Rielly echoed this pessimism, noting that roughly 18 state privacy statutes have not demonstrably improved privacy protection. He expressed support for federal preemption of state AI and privacy regulation, but the political reality suggests that won't happen. Former Commissioner Mignon Clyburn joked that the word "comprehensive" was "banned from this discussion," highlighting how fractured the regulatory landscape has become.

The result is what McDowell called a "patchwork quilt" of state-level AI and privacy rules that confuse consumers and create compliance headaches for businesses operating across multiple jurisdictions. Without federal action, companies must navigate an increasingly complex maze of conflicting state requirements.

What Will Actually Regulate AI if Congress Won't Act?

If comprehensive legislation remains unlikely, AI governance will emerge through multiple fragmented channels. Panelists identified several mechanisms that are already shaping how AI is regulated in practice:

• FCC License Conditions: The FCC can condition grants of broadcast and wireless licenses on AI-related compliance requirements, though this is a relatively limited regulatory hook that would not support broad regulation of AI across the economy.
• Government Contracts and Procurement Rules: Federal agencies can impose AI governance principles through their purchasing power, requiring contractors to meet specific AI safety and ethics standards.
• Sector-Specific Frameworks: Governance principles could emerge through targeted rules covering defense, critical infrastructure, and supply chain security, rather than one-size-fits-all legislation.
• Executive Action: The Executive Branch and the Department of Commerce can establish AI policy without Congressional approval, though such rules are vulnerable to reversal by future administrations.

Clyburn emphasized that any federal preemption of state AI regulation must be paired with a coherent national AI framework. She raised concerns about algorithmic bias and profiling, particularly the vulnerability of underserved and rural communities in AI-driven systems affecting critical areas such as health care premiums.

"Confidence, humility, and urgency" are required from regulators in the coming years, said Commissioner Olivia Trusty.

Olivia Trusty, FCC Commissioner

Commissioner Trusty, marking one year since her swearing-in, emphasized three interconnected priorities: achieving universal connectivity, strengthening network security and resilience, and advancing U.S. leadership in next-generation technologies. She described the current period as a "golden age of communications," citing rapid innovation in AI, satellite and wireless technologies, and cloud-based platforms.

She

How Should Companies Prepare for Fragmented AI Regulation?

Given the regulatory uncertainty, practitioners and businesses should take several concrete steps to manage compliance risk:

• Build Flexible Compliance Programs: Companies should develop compliance frameworks capable of addressing a growing patchwork of state privacy and AI statutes, supplemented by sector-specific federal requirements imposed through agency conditions, procurement rules, and executive action.
• Monitor Multiple Agencies: Practitioners should track developments across agencies beyond the FCC, especially if there are changes in the political party controlling Congress or the Executive Branch, since AI governance will likely continue to emerge through multiple channels rather than a single comprehensive federal statute.
• Prepare for License and Contract Conditions: Companies should anticipate regulatory obligations attached to FCC license conditions, government contracts, and supply chain security requirements, even without a unified federal AI law.

The panelists also discussed the broader implications of AI for the U.S. economy and society. Former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt suggested that the next U.S. President will be compelled to address how best to regulate AI and its implications for the broader economy. He noted Americans' widespread fear about AI and warned about potential societal, workforce, and democratic implications.

O'Rielly offered a more optimistic perspective, attributing much of the public fear to poor marketing while emphasizing that AI is already interwoven into Americans' daily lives. This disagreement reflects a deeper tension in AI governance: whether the technology poses existential risks requiring strict regulation, or whether market forces and targeted sector-specific rules are sufficient.

The symposium underscored a critical reality for businesses and consumers alike. Without comprehensive federal legislation, AI governance in the United States will remain fragmented, inconsistent, and subject to change as political priorities shift. Companies operating across state lines will face mounting compliance costs, while consumers may receive uneven protections depending on where they live and which services they use. The regulatory vacuum is unlikely to be filled by Congress in the near term, leaving the FCC, the Department of Commerce, and state legislatures to improvise solutions on the fly.