March 24, 2026
Recently, the White House released a series of recommendations to Congress for a federal AI framework focused on spurring innovation, strengthening American leadership, and protecting our citizens and values.
It is a serious, well-structured roadmap built around seven clear pillars, from child safety and national security, to workforce development, and free speech.
And yet, some of the reactions in the last week to it have been completely detached from what is actually in the document, including an insane take from Senator Warren tying large processors to smart phones and laptops.
Here are some of the most outrageous takes and why they miss the point.
The Take: The More Perfect Union reacted stating, “...The proposal says: "States should not be permitted to regulate AI development." It also says that states shouldn't be able to penalize AI companies when people break the law with their models.”
Response: That is exactly the point of the White House coming out with their approach for a national framework. AI is a new and transformative technology that touches interstate commerce. The More Perfect Union failed to add how the proposal lets states have authority over preventing fraud, consumer protections, child safety, zoning, and their own AI use. That framing leaves out key parts of the document, which is important for the reader to gain a full picture.
The Take: “Nothing to see here… basically nothing meaningful in terms of a federal framework.” - Charlie Bullock
Response: This is one of the easiest claims to disprove.
The framework lays out seven distinct pillars that cover everything from protecting children and strengthening national security to supporting creators, defending free speech, and building an AI-ready workforce. That is not “nothing.” As Neil Chilson highlighted, it is exactly what a White House framework is supposed to be: a legislative blueprint that sets direction and priorities for Congress.
Dismissing that as meaningless ignores both the substance of the document and how policymaking actually works.
The Take: “The White House is trying to make AI a partisan issue again” - Veronica Irwin
Response: The framing of her title does not hold up when you look at the actual plan. Nowhere in the proposal does the language include anything close to partisan framing. It does the opposite. The national framework is aimed to equip all Americans to succeed. Director Kratsios highlighted how “Congress has a lot of priorities they’re trying to make happen, but we believe this can receive bipartisan support."
The Take: “You can't "ensure every American benefits from AI" without an indefinite pause. Otherwise, you are risking their lives.” - David Kreuger
Response: This is an incredibly egregious take on AI. Within the White House’s guidance is an emphasis on expanding access to test models and responsible development and deployment, which can be best accomplished by creating regulatory sandboxes. It is better to iterate and learn from success and failures in real-time by constant examination and evaluation. You can only accomplish that by deployment, not a pause. Pausing AI will constrain the ability to know whether a product is safe.
The Take: “I'm going to start making a list of Trump stuff to repeal. Start with this AI order. #DayOne2029" - Matt Stoller
Response: His post is a knee-jerk reaction driven by politics, not policy. The White House’s guidance was carefully crafted to protect all Americans, while driving innovation. We should build on that progress, not tear it down.
The Take: “AI amnesty,” - Sacha Haworth; “Mad Max for the AI industry,” - Brad Carson
Response: These arguments are a fundamental mischaracterization of the White House’s proposal.
The framework does not create a law. Rather, it outlines principles for legislation. Those principles explicitly include protecting consumers, defending free speech, and avoiding excessive litigation that could slow innovation.
There is a difference between avoiding a crushing regulatory regime and eliminating accountability. The recommendations achieve balance, not immunity.
The Take: “...the proposed regulations provide “no path to accountability” for harms caused by the technology.” and “until the federal government can develop a real, meaningful framework for AI, states must continue to lead.” - Brendan Steinhauser Take #1 and Brendan Steinhauser Take #2
Response: As explained in the More Perfect Union example, the White House’s blueprint respects the role that states play in their own use of AI and protects their citizens and communities. The White House’s goal is to ensure that states aren’t slowing down development and deployment.
The Take: “I spoke to Anthropic’s AI agent Claude about AI collecting massive amounts of personal data and how that information is being used to violate our privacy rights. What an AI agent says about the dangers of AI is shocking and should wake us up.” - Senator Bernie Sanders
Response: Large language models like Claude do not have awareness or independent opinions. They generate responses based on patterns in data, prompts, and training. Presenting an AI system’s output as if it is offering its own “warning” about AI risks confuses the public about how the technology functions.
It is also worth noting that the voice used in these clips does not reflect the actual capabilities of Claude’s native voice systems, which raises additional questions about how the content was presented.
The Take: “Trump just signed off on NVIDIA's plan to divert advanced chips to China. That'll drive prices of laptops and smartphones even higher – and help China overtake us in AI…” - Senator Elizabeth Warren
Response: That argument assumes these two very different types of semiconductors compete for the same supply and influence each other’s pricing. In reality, they are entirely different classes of technology built for distinct end uses. Advanced AI accelerators like the H200s are purpose-built for data centers and large-scale computing workloads, not consumer devices.
Jay Burstein is a fellow with Build American AI.
.png)
