OpenAI has begun referring to its data centers as “compute campuses” and is soliciting community input on their construction, while promoting a centrist approach to AI regulation. The company argues regulations should function like speeding limits for cars—balancing everyday benefits of AI with safety measures—and has called for global AI standards, according to reporting first published by Axios.
A multi-pronged policy and lobbying effort
The company’s policy push includes renaming infrastructure, advocating for mandatory AI testing legislation that could secure 60 votes in Congress by building cross-party coalitions, and supporting certain state-level AI laws. Chris Lehane, OpenAI’s top lobbyist, told Semafor that the company’s refreshed positions—on data centers and on putting people in control of AI—are meant to be "durable," even if that leaves OpenAI in a "lonely position." Lehane said OpenAI also recently endorsed two frontier AI safety bills in California.
Lehane warned that in the coming months there will be “hundreds and hundreds” of state bills and asked whether Congress and the White House want to cede control of AI policy. He added that OpenAI discussed the AI "kill switch" bill that Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) proposed in July and said the company would soon outline "next steps" to make its products safer for teenage users.
Pushback from advocates and some Democrats
Initial reactions from AI safety advocates and some Democratic politicians have been skeptical. Brad Carson, former Oklahoma Democratic congressman and co-founder and president of Americans for Responsible Innovation, said, “If they think they can change the AI debate with Orwellian name changes, they are setting themselves up for failure.”
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Tex.) posted on X: “AI will be the number one issue in 2028. And anyone looking to OpenAI’s lobbyist for advice will lose.” Alex Bores, a New York State assemblyman who was targeted by the AI industry during his run for Congress, characterized Lehane’s effort as trying to secure the best possible deal with the Trump administration before Democrats take control, while noting the framing around control and public stake in the technology.
The practical politics of compromise
Observers note that Democrats will likely need to work with Republicans to enact AI policy next year regardless of which party controls Congress, which makes moderation and compromise unavoidable. Joseph Hoefer, chief AI officer at Monument Advocacy, told Semafor he expects others in the industry to follow OpenAI’s lead because that is where the political calculus is headed. He added that while the industry has successfully argued for lighter-touch regulation so far, polling shows limits to that approach, and a hands-off message becomes harder to sustain when voters ask who is in control.
Hoefer said AI companies seeking to sustain sector growth want to give lawmakers defensible arguments for AI investment to use back home.
Why this matters
OpenAI’s terminological change and policy campaign reflect broader tensions about how to balance technological innovation with public safety, privacy, and governance concerns. How policymakers respond—and whether they form cross-party compromises with technology firms—will shape both state and federal AI regulation and the role companies play in designing those rules.
