Zuckerberg rejects slowing down AI while the big labs are divided over the pace of development

To impose limits on the development of artificial intelligence (AI) in the United States, there is currently no single "framework law" as might exist in other systems. What does exist is a set of legislative and regulatory pathways that, combined, allow for the regulation of AI. The core lies in the federal legislative process of Congress, but the White House and sectoral regulatory agencies also intervene.

1. Initiative: who can put the issue on the table

At the federal level, only members of Congress (senators and representatives) can introduce bills. There is no direct popular initiative at the federal level. In practice, AI limits usually originate from:

• Bills in Congress on specific aspects: use of AI in criminal justice, data protection, algorithmic transparency, systemic risks, etc.
• Executive orders from the president, which instruct agencies to develop rules within their competencies (for example, national security, commerce, labor).
• State initiatives, when states pass their own laws on AI, privacy, or algorithmic discrimination, which can pressure for more uniform federal regulation.

2. Processing a federal law in Congress

The basic legislative process to limit AI is the same as for any other matter:

• Introduction: a member of the House of Representatives or the Senate files the bill, which receives a code (for example, H.R. 1234 in the House, S. 567 in the Senate).
• Referral to committee: the chamber leadership refers the bill to the competent committee (Judiciary, Commerce, Science, Homeland Security, etc.), sometimes to several.
• Committee work:
  • Hearings: experts, companies, NGOs, agencies, and academics testify about AI risks and benefits.
  • Markup: members debate and propose amendments. Here key elements are specified such as definitions of "high-risk" AI, impact assessment obligations, sanctions, exemptions, implementation deadlines, etc.
  • Committee report, recommending approval, modification, or rejection of the bill.
• Debate and vote in the full chamber:
  • The corresponding chamber (House or Senate) debates the text, may allow more amendments, and finally votes.
  • If approved, the bill goes to the other chamber, which repeats the committee and full chamber cycle.
• Reconciliation:
  • If both chambers approve different versions, a conference committee is created to unify a text.
  • The reconciled text is then submitted to a new vote in both chambers.
• Presidential signature: the president can sign (the law takes effect) or veto. Congress can attempt to override the veto with a two-thirds majority in both chambers.

3. Regulatory development: the role of agencies

Most technical details about how AI limits are applied are specified by federal agencies through regulation:

• The law usually orders one or more agencies (for example, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Commerce, or the Food and Drug Administration) to develop rules.
• Agencies open rulemaking procedures with public consultations, proposed rules, and comment periods.
• After analyzing the claims, they approve final rules specifying obligations: technical documentation, audits, transparency, impact assessments, safety requirements, etc.

Sometimes, without a specific AI law, agencies already act by reinterpreting their general competencies (for example, protecting consumers against deceptive practices or safety risks).

4. Executive orders and non-binding guidelines

The president can issue executive orders that:

• Order agencies to develop standards for advanced AI models.
• Set requirements for the use of AI by the federal government itself (for example, civil rights impact assessments).
• Create interagency working groups or request technical reports from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Additionally, NIST and other entities publish frameworks and best practices (risk management frameworks, assessment guides, etc.), which are not law but greatly influence how companies design and document their AI systems.

5. State and local levels

Alongside the federal level, many states and cities are passing:

• Laws on privacy and data processing that affect AI systems.
• Rules on the use of AI in employment, housing, police surveillance, or public contracting.
• Requirements for bias assessment and notification when AI is used in automated decisions.

These rules can coexist with federal regulation as long as they do not conflict; if Congress passes a law that "occupies the field" (pre-emption), it can displace incompatible state regulations.

The information available in the consulted sources does not provide an explicit and detailed list of the legal powers of the chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in technology matters, but it does allow outlining the type of functions exercised by the FTC – and, by extension, its chair – in regulating the digital economy, based on its actions in specific cases and comparison with other U.S. federal agencies.

Investigation and prosecution of conduct in digital markets

An article from Demócrata about the FTC's investigation of Amazon and Google for their management of online advertising describes the Commission as a regulator capable of opening formal investigations against large tech platforms when there are doubts about the clarity and truthfulness of the information they provide to business users of their advertising services. In that case, the inquiry is entrusted to the FTC's consumer protection division, which analyzes whether the companies have offered misleading data about costs and fees in their advertising auctions.

From this example, it follows that, in the technology field, the FTC:

• Can initiate investigations ex officio or after receiving indications of possible unfair practices in digital services (such as online advertising).
• Acts on large platforms (Amazon, Google) assessing whether their behavior in digital markets is harmful to consumers or businesses.
• Frames its action within its traditional consumer protection mandate, applied to technological products and services.

Although the cited article does not detail the formal role the FTC chair plays in each case, it is reasonable, based on institutional logic, to understand that the chair politically leads the orientation of these priorities and supervises the work of the responsible divisions.

Sanctioning capacity and regulatory power of agencies

The investigative trail includes several references to other U.S. federal agencies, particularly the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which help understand the general framework in which the FTC also operates. An analysis by Demócrata of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling explains how the High Court has supported the FCC's ability to impose fines on operators for sharing location data without permission, using its own administrative sanctioning system without initially resorting to a jury trial.

Although this concerns the FCC and not the FTC, the article emphasizes that the decision comes in a context of “increasing pressure on regulatory agencies” overseeing key sectors such as telecommunications, financial markets, energy, health, or technology. This description places the FTC in the same family of federal bodies with:

• Administrative powers of investigation and sanction, relevant when their cases affect digital services and platforms.
• Actions that are judicially reviewed but originate from internal agency decisions (opening procedures, determining violations, imposing fines).

This framework allows understanding that the FTC chair does not act as an individual regulator but as head of a collegial agency with strong enforcement powers in technology markets.

Agenda and coordination with other agencies

The analyzed news describe a landscape in which different sectoral regulators — both in the United States and Europe — coordinate their actions facing the challenges of the digital economy. The Demócrata article on increasing pressure on agencies mentions that large tech companies accumulate parallel proceedings in the European Union and the United States, and that there is cooperation between authorities on both sides of the Atlantic.

Applied to the U.S. case, this implies that the FTC chair:

• Must coordinate the Commission's actions with other agencies such as the Department of Justice (in its competition role) and the FCC, especially when matters combine elements of telecommunications, personal data, advertising, and competition.
• Participates in defining a cross-cutting regulatory strategy against large platforms, in dialogue with other regulators and international partners.

Limits of available information

None of the consulted documents literally break down what are, in legal terms, the exclusive powers of the FTC chair (for example, whether they can issue certain orders alone, how collegial decisions are voted on, or the scope of their regulatory proposal power). What they do show is the FTC acting as an investigative and enforcement authority in digital markets, with a chair who sets the political priority of these actions and represents the agency in the U.S. technology regulatory ecosystem.

The latest presidential elections in the United States were in 2024. According to information gathered by the newspaper Demócrata and other analyses cited in that same outlet, the Republican Donald Trump defeated the Democratic candidate Kamala Harris. In the Electoral College, Trump obtained 312 electoral votes compared to 226 for Harris, comfortably surpassing the threshold of 270 electors needed to win the presidency.

Results in the Electoral College

The clearest and most repeated data in the analysis pieces is the distribution of electors in the Electoral College:

• Donald Trump (Republican Party): 312 electoral votes.
• Kamala Harris (Democratic Party): 226 electoral votes.

This result implies that Trump achieved a relatively broad majority of states and, above all, secured a significant portion of the so-called "swing states", decisive in tipping the final outcome. In a note from the FAES Foundation, cited in the research, it is precisely emphasized that the Republican candidate "prevailed in the swing states," thus consolidating his advantage in the Electoral College.

Popular vote: margin between Trump and Harris

Regarding the popular vote (the total number of ballots cast nationwide), the consulted sources do not provide a complete and detailed breakdown by percentage, but do provide a relevant figure: the same FAES Foundation analysis notes that Donald Trump outpaced Kamala Harris by about 1.3 million votes in the national tally.

This allows stating that:

• Trump not only won the Electoral College but also finished ahead in the popular vote.
• The difference in total votes was clear but not overwhelming: a margin of approximately 1.3 million ballots in a country with tens of millions of voters.

Without official data broken down by percentage in the consulted sources, it is not possible to rigorously provide the exact figure of "x% versus y%" for each candidate. That detailed information is usually published in the official records of each state and in the summary of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), but it does not appear quantified in percentage in the texts accessible within this research.

Political context of the result

Post-election journalistic analyses highlight several key elements:

• Clarity of the result: an article from Demócrata emphasizes that Trump's victory was clear enough to rule out scenarios of a tie or massive contestation of the results, unlike in 2020.
• Participation and mobilization: a drop in turnout compared to 2020 is noted, which would have hurt the Democratic candidate, particularly among young and progressive sectors who were demobilized.
• Reconfiguration of social blocks: analyses insist that it is no longer possible to take for granted that very large majorities of women, African Americans, or Latinos automatically vote for Democrats. Trump would have consolidated support in parts of those segments.
• Economic perception: despite relatively positive macroeconomic data at the end of Biden's term, the microeconomic perception of many families – after inflation and interest rate hikes – would have favored the Republican discourse.

International reading and consequences

Trump's 2024 victory has been interpreted in Europe as an added factor of instability in the international order. The analysis from Demócrata cited highlights:

• Concern about the impact of a presidency openly skeptical of multilateralism, regulated international trade, and some key EU consensuses.
• The need for the European Union to strengthen its strategic autonomy and be capable of playing a more active and coherent role in security, trade, and foreign policy.

In summary, the latest U.S. presidential elections ended with a clear victory for Donald Trump both in the Electoral College (312 electors versus 226) and in the popular vote (an approximate margin of 1.3 million votes), in a context of high polarization and with significant internal and international implications.