Populist-left figures are pushing back against calls for new artificial intelligence regulation, arguing that existing laws already give prosecutors and regulators the tools they need to hold AI developers accountable. The stance puts a faction of the Democratic Party-one that held significant domestic policy influence under the last Democratic president-at odds with AI safety advocates who warn that current legal frameworks are insufficient for containing a technology that could cause harm on a catastrophic scale.
The debate intensified after an article in The American Prospect, headlined "Congressional Democrats in Hysterics About Saving the World From AI," argued that the danger from runaway AI is overblown. Lina Khan, the former chair of the Federal Trade Commission and a current adviser to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, wrote in a social-media post, "Law enforcers already have authority to charge companies and their CEOs for creating and releasing dangerous, unvetted, or defective products."
The limits of existing legal tools
Legal experts point to several problems with relying on current laws. The potential harm from an uncontrolled AI system could far exceed the value of the firms developing it, making civil lawsuits an empty remedy. Compensating for a disaster that kills millions would be beyond the financial capacity of even the largest AI companies. Criminal prosecutions for selling faulty products face a different obstacle: the threat of charges could incentivize developers to hide risks rather than disclose them.
Simon Goldstein, who works on AI ethics and law at the University of Hong Kong, said a prosecution-first approach would likely backfire. "First, it creates an incentive to hide risks. Second, it is very crude, shutting down an entire company rather than differentially targeting more dangerous practices." Goldstein also noted that if an AI system hides its intentions despite its creators' best efforts to control it, establishing human culpability under existing laws becomes murky.
Reed Showalter, a lawyer and antitrust expert who served in the Biden administration, made a simpler point: the dangers AI insiders warn about are being developed right now, under existing laws. If those laws were sufficient deterrents, the activity would not be proceeding at its current pace. The prospect of being charged by a future administration would already be shaping behavior if executives believed their actions violated current statutes. They clearly do not.
The neo-Brandeisian worldview
The resistance to new AI rules comes largely from a movement that sees monopoly power as the central problem in American economic and political life. Khan is a leading figure, as is Alvaro Bedoya, a former FTC commissioner who now serves as a senior adviser at the American Economic Liberties Project. These self-described neo-Brandeisians, named after the early-20th-century Supreme Court justice, bring a consistent but narrow framework to the question.
Their suspicion is rooted in a belief that corporate executives' interests are almost diametrically opposed to the public's. When AI leaders such as Sam Altman call for government oversight, populists see a strategy to entrench dominant firms and box out competitors. The industry has also asked for an antitrust exemption so leading companies can coordinate a slowdown-a request that looks reasonable if the concern is a race toward uncontrollable technology, but suspect if rigorous antitrust enforcement is your highest policy priority.
Barry Lynn, the movement's intellectual godfather, has written, "Monopoly is not one of many economics problems but rather the political economic problem of our time." That monomania, critics argue, is the flaw. Showalter, himself a neo-Brandeisian, believes his colleagues are making a mistake by opposing AI regulation.
Some populists also believe the AI industry is exaggerating its capabilities. Bedoya asked on MS NOW, "What's more likely? That AI will end human society-or that the CEOs know that their technology isn't as good as they say it is, and they're trying to lock in their place at the top of the industry?" A separate American Prospect story warned against giving the AI industry a federal bailout in the event of a collapse, suggesting the authors consider that outcome plausible.
Why this matters for legal professionals
The argument that existing product-liability and criminal-fraud statutes can handle AI risk is, at its core, a legal claim about the scope and deterrent effect of current law. Lawyers working in regulatory compliance, white-collar defense, or technology policy will need to track whether that claim holds up as AI capabilities advance. The debate also surfaces a recurring tension in administrative law: when an agency's existing authority is stretched to cover a novel risk, courts may not agree that the authority exists. Professionals pursuing AI regulatory compliance courses or AI public policy courses will encounter these statutory interpretation questions directly. The first serious push for AI legislation will likely come under the next Democratic administration, making the intra-party divide over regulation a practical concern for anyone advising clients on long-term legal exposure in the AI sector.
Your membership also unlocks:
