Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) stated on Sunday that the federal government should establish a dedicated regulatory agency to oversee the development of artificial intelligence, modeling the structure after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Speaking with CBS News host Margaret Brennan on "Face the Nation," Khanna argued that current regulatory frameworks are insufficient for the pace of AI innovation.
The proposal comes amid growing national debate over how best to regulate emerging technologies without stifling innovation. Khanna’s suggestion marks a significant shift in the Democratic platform, moving from general oversight principles to the creation of a specific, standalone federal entity with enforcement powers.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative commentators and industry-aligned Republicans have expressed skepticism regarding the creation of a new bureaucratic entity. Critics argue that a new agency could stifle American innovation and allow competitors in other nations, such as China, to gain a technological advantage due to less restrictive regulations.
Opponents of the proposal often advocate for a lighter-touch regulatory approach, suggesting that existing frameworks or market forces are better suited to manage AI risks. They warn that a federal agency modeled on the FDA could create significant barriers to entry for startups and slow down the deployment of beneficial AI technologies in healthcare and other sectors.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive lawmakers and tech policy advocates have largely supported Khanna’s proposal, viewing it as a necessary step to ensure safety and accountability. Supporters argue that just as the FDA evaluates drugs for safety and efficacy before they reach the market, an AI agency would need to assess algorithms and models for potential harms before widespread deployment.
Advocates within the Democratic caucus contend that the private sector’s self-regulation has failed to address critical issues such as bias, privacy violations, and national security risks associated with advanced AI systems. They view Khanna’s FDA analogy as a proven model for managing complex scientific developments through rigorous, independent oversight.
What the Numbers Show
The FDA, which serves as the model for Khanna’s proposal, oversees a vast array of products including prescription drugs, medical devices, and food safety. The agency employs approximately 17,000 staff members and operates with an annual budget exceeding $6 billion. In contrast, current federal AI oversight is fragmented across multiple agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), without a single coordinating body.
Recent legislative efforts, such as the Executive Order on AI issued by the current administration, have directed existing agencies to develop guidelines, but have not created new statutory authority for a dedicated regulator. The proposed agency would require congressional authorization and funding, distinct from the executive actions taken so far.
The Bottom Line
Khanna’s proposal introduces a concrete legislative framework for AI regulation that moves beyond general principles to specific institutional design. If adopted, it would fundamentally alter the federal government’s role in the tech sector, centralizing authority in a new entity. The debate now shifts to whether Congress will prioritize the speed of innovation or the rigor of safety oversight in its upcoming policy decisions.