Anthropic, a leading player in the field of artificial intelligence, is adopting a competitive strategy that encourages states to implement increasingly stringent AI regulations, rather than rallying around a unified national standard.
This stance sharply contrasts with that of its primary competitor, OpenAI, which has been advocating for a more harmonized approach to AI regulation among lawmakers.
Cesar Fernandez, who heads U.S. state and local government relations for Anthropic, articulated this perspective in a recent interview with POLITICO, part of the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network: "While some in the industry see state policy as a way to establish a limit for federal legislation, we are not simply aiming to back the same bill in every state. Our goal is to advance legislation that genuinely enhances the safety of the most advanced AI systems."
Fernandez's remarks were prompted by inquiries about OpenAI's ongoing efforts to influence state-level AI regulations. OpenAI's chief lobbyist, Chris Lehane, has coined the term “reverse federalism” to describe their strategy of bypassing a stagnant Congress and creating a national AI framework by adapting regulations state by state.
This subtle critique of OpenAI aligns with Anthropic’s history; several of its executives departed OpenAI in 2020 due to concerns over a lack of priority on safety. Since then, Anthropic has actively advocated for tougher AI safety regulations at both the federal and state levels—an initiative that some critics, particularly from the Trump administration and venture capital circles, have perceived as an effort to weaken regulatory bodies and eliminate competition.
In defense of their approach, OpenAI spokesperson Liz Bourgeois emphasized that “reverse federalism, where effective state safeguards shape national standards, assists regulators in enforcing the law, clarifies protections for the public, and enables developers to concentrate on safety rather than conflicting standards.”
The difference in tactics between Anthropic and OpenAI surfaces at a pivotal moment for AI regulation. With Congress hesitant to take action and the White House oscillating between a lenient and strict stance, the AI sector is increasingly looking at state governments for regulatory guidance. The eventual decision by state legislators to either consolidate around a unified AI safety framework or engage in a competitive regulatory landscape will significantly influence the future of AI rules in the United States.
Fernandez expressed a desire for a federal regulatory framework but acknowledged the need for immediate action: “A government response to the challenges posed by advanced AI models cannot wait for Washington's intervention.”
Setting Anthropic apart, Fernandez highlighted the company’s proactive stance in state policy debates. Notably, Anthropic was the first major AI laboratory to endorse California's upcoming 2025 law aimed at regulating advanced AI models, establishing a precedent in the country.
In contrast, OpenAI did not take a public stance on the California proposal before it was passed, but has since pointed to the law as a model for others to follow due to its focus on increasing transparency regarding companies' safety measures.
Anthropic views the California regulations as an opportunity to amplify its AI safety initiatives, with Fernandez noting, "Each of those bills has been more robust than its predecessor, driving forward real safety obligations." He believes that mere transparency and self-reporting are no longer sufficient.
Fernandez also referred to Anthropic’s Claude Mythos model, which reportedly exhibited the ability to exploit vulnerabilities in major operating systems during its evaluations. These concerns over cybersecurity prompted significant alarm within the Trump administration, leading to the imposition of export controls until potential risks were addressed.
Last year, OpenAI successfully lobbied New York Governor Kathy Hochul to modify her state's AI safety legislation so that it mirrored California’s guidelines more closely. However, it surprised many safety advocates by aligning with Anthropic on an Illinois initiative that implemented stricter requirements than those in New York and California. This newly enacted law mandates annual independent audits of safety plans for leading AI corporations.
Continuing its push for rigorous standards, Anthropic also endorsed evolving regulations in Massachusetts, which it regards as the most robust AI safety proposal in the country. The proposed legislation would require leading AI firms to engage independent evaluators to assess risks related to catastrophic outcomes, such as the facilitation of bioweapons development, and empower the state's attorney general to enforce these mandates.
Bourgeois noted that OpenAI is still evaluating the Massachusetts proposal but supports the emphasis on AI safeguards put forth by the state legislature.
Beyond regulatory approaches, both companies have engaged in political maneuvering. They maintain competing super PAC networks that have invested millions into political campaigns throughout the nation. Recently, Anthropic began making direct contributions to California legislators.
Fernandez shared that, “We support candidates for election and re-election who share our perspective on AI safety regulation, as it aligns with our mission to ensure the transition to a world with powerful AI benefits society at large.” He stated that they do not coordinate with employees who have also donated to political candidates, explaining, “We don’t direct our employees to contribute, but they are drawn to Anthropic because of their concerns about AI’s future and the need for effective safety policies.”
