The new California AI security law shows that regulations and innovation do not have to compete

SB 53, the IA security and transparency bill that the governor of California Gavin Newsom signed this week is proof that state regulations do not have to hinder AI progress.

So said Adam Billen, vice-president of the public policy of the youth defense group, Encode Ai, on the episode of today.

“The reality is that political decision -makers know themselves that we have to do something, and they know by working on a million other questions that there is a way to adopt legislation that truly protects innovation – which takes care of it – while ensuring that these products are safe,” Billen told Techcrunch.

Basically, SB 53 is a leading bill that requires large AI laboratories to be transparent on their security and security protocols – in particular on the way they prevent their catastrophic risk models, such as being used to committing cyber attacks on critical infrastructure or building organic weapons. The law also obliges that companies stand for these protocols, which will be applied by the Office of Emergency Services.

“Companies are already doing what we ask them to do in this bill,” Billen told Techcrunch. “They do security tests on their models. They publish model cards. Do they start to skimp in certain areas of certain companies? Yes. And that is why invoices like this are important.”

Billen also noted that some IA companies had a policy of relaxing safety standards under competitive pressure. OPENAI, for example, said publicly that he could “adjust” his security requirements if a Rival AI laboratory releases a high -risk system without similar guarantees. Billen argues that the policy can enforce the existing security promises of companies, which prevents them from reducing corners under competitive or financial pressures.

While the public opposition to SB 53 was silent compared to its predecessor SB 1047, that Newsom opposed its veto last year, the rhetoric of Silicon Valley and among most Laboratories of AI was that almost all the regulations of AI are an athlete to progress and will end up hindering the United States in his race for China.

This is why companies like Meta, VCs like Andreessen Horowitz and powerful individuals such as the president of Openai, Greg Brockman, collectively pump hundreds of millions in Super CAPs to support pro-Ai politicians in state elections. And that is why these same forces earlier this year have pushed an AI moratorium which would have prohibited states from regulating AI for 10 years.

Encode AI has led a coalition of more than 200 organizations to work to eliminate the proposal, but Billen says that the fight is not finished. Senator Ted Cruz, who defended the moratorium, attempts a new strategy to achieve the same objective of federal preemption of the laws of the States. In September, Cruz presented the Sandbox Act, which would allow AI companies to request derogations to temporarily circumvent certain federal regulations up to 10 years. Billen also provides for an upcoming bill establishing a federal AI standard which would be presented as a soil solution, but which in reality in reality the laws of the States.

He warned that federal legislation on narrow AI has been “removed federalism for the most important technology of our time”.

“If you told me that the SB 53 was the bill that would replace all the bills of the State law on everything related to AI and all the potential risks, I would tell you that this is probably not a very good idea and that this bill is designed for a particular subset of things,” said Billen.

Although it is appropriate that the AI ​​race with China is important and that political decision -makers must adopt regulations that will support American progress, he says that killing the bills of the state – which are mainly concentrated on deep buttocks, transparency, algorithmic discrimination, children’s safety and government use of AI – is not the way to do this.

“Are invoices like SB 53, the thing that will prevent us from beating China? No,” he said. “I think it is really intellectually dishonest to say that this is the thing that will stop us in the race.”

He added: “If the thing that is close to your heart is to beat China in the race on AI – and I care – then the things you would push are things like Congress Export Controls,” said Billen. “You make sure that American companies have flea. But that’s not what industry is full. ”

Legislative proposals such as the Chip Security Act aim to prevent the misappropriation of advanced fleas to China thanks to controls and export monitoring devices, and the existing flea and science law aims to stimulate the production of national fleas. However, some major technological companies, including Openai and Nvidia, have expressed reluctance or opposition to certain aspects of these efforts, citing concerns about efficiency, competitiveness and security vulnerabilities.

Nvidia has its reasons – it is a strong financial incentive to continue selling fleas to China, which has historically represented a significant part of its world revenues. Billen has hypothesized that Optai could retain the export advocacy of the chips to stay in the good graces of crucial suppliers like Nvidia.

There have also been inconsistent messages from the Trump administration. Three months after having expanded the ban on exports of advanced AI fleas in China in April 2025, the administration overthrew the course, allowing Nvidia and AMD to sell fleas to China in exchange for 15% of income.

“You see people on the hill travel to invoices like the Chip Security Act which would put export checks on China,” said Billen. “In the meantime, he will continue to be this support for the story to kill bills of state law which are in fact quite light.”

Billen added that SB 53 is an example of democracy in action – industry and political decision -makers working together to reach a version of a bill on which everyone can get along. It is “very ugly and disorderly”, but “this process of democracy and federalism is the complete foundation of our country and our economic system, and I hope that we will continue to do it successfully”.

“I think SB 53 is one of the best evidence that can still work,” he said.

This article was published for the first time on October 1.