Senator Bernie Sanders and Congressman Greg Casar have introduced a sweeping bill to halt advanced artificial intelligence development, threatening stiff federal prison terms and corporate bans, drawing sharp warnings that their plan could hand America’s technological edge to China.
Sanders, the Vermont independent, and Casar, a Texas Democrat, rolled out the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act on Thursday, aiming to freeze the most advanced AI projects and criminalize future violations. Under the proposal, a new Cabinet-level federal agency would oversee AI, companies could lose their legal authority to operate in the U.S., and individuals, engineers, researchers, executives, found in violation could face up to 20 years in federal prison. The bill’s penalties, according to Fox News Digital, are modeled on statutes currently used for unlawful nuclear weapons development.
The legislation specifically targets “frontier” AI systems, those capable of matching or exceeding human thinking and action. It would ban the creation of models that could ignore human shutdown commands, conduct unauthorized cyberattacks, or even undermine the U.S. government. The proposal goes so far as to describe stripping companies of their right to do business in America as a “corporate death penalty.”
Supporters frame the bill as a necessary defense against “disempowerment of humanity”, the risk that runaway AI could threaten national security or public safety. But the plan’s scope and its one-sided nature, imposing a freeze on U.S. development while adversaries like China press ahead, have alarmed technology leaders and security experts.
Daniel Castro, president of the nonpartisan Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, warned that cutting off American AI progress would come at a steep price. “If the United States stops developing advanced AI, China is unlikely to follow. Surrendering the lead in a potentially transformative technology would carry serious economic and national security costs,” Castro said.
Gary Marcus, a widely respected AI expert who has testified before the Senate, agreed that some oversight is reasonable but blasted the idea of a permanent, unilateral ban. “A permanent, unilateral ban on all research into superhuman AI is too broad,” Marcus said, calling it “not the right approach” and a “guarantee” the U.S. would be left behind in the AI race.
Former Department of Homeland Security official Bridget Bean, who led the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, also flagged China’s rapid AI progress and new risks from “dystopian” models and potential cyber-biological weapons. For critics, the Sanders-Casar plan amounts to unilateral disarmament in the face of determined foreign adversaries.
Beyond freezing AI progress, the bill would create new federal crimes for developing or deploying certain advanced AI models. Violators, including individual software engineers, could face up to two decades in prison. Companies found noncompliant could be shut out of the U.S. market entirely, stripped of their legal authority to conduct business, a move that industry figures describe as a “corporate death penalty.”
The new Cabinet-level agency would be tasked with monitoring the most advanced systems, enforcing destructive takedowns of dangerous code, and even physically destroying noncompliant hardware and infrastructure. These powers, modeled on existing nuclear weapons law, represent an unprecedented federal reach into what many see as the next engine of American innovation.
This aggressive approach has drawn fire from both tech industry voices and policy watchdogs. Aden Hizkias, associate policy director at the tech-industry coalition Chamber of Progress, described the move as rash and counterproductive. “Knee-jerk policymaking is never a good thing, and I think that’s exactly what this proposal boils down to,” Hizkias said. While acknowledging that AI “can improve millions of lives,” Hizkias argued that trust and transparency, rather than criminalization, should be the focus.
This is hardly the first time Sanders has staked out a position that’s drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. His recent moves, from declining to back Francesca Hong in Wisconsin’s gubernatorial primary to facing bipartisan backlash over his endorsement record, have made headlines and sparked debate over his role in the Democratic Party. For more on Sanders’s political calculations and the scrutiny he faces, see our coverage of his recent Wisconsin stand and the Platner scandal fallout.
Sanders’s high-profile interventions, from his clashes with fellow Democrats over Israel to his commentary on technology and labor, underscore a career spent at the center of progressive policy fights. As he edges away from presidential ambitions, as seen in his recent remarks on 2028, Sanders has doubled down on ambitious government intervention, this time in the very sector that could determine America’s global standing for decades.
Many key details remain unclear. The bill’s full text, its precise legal language, and the specific statutes it draws on have not been publicly detailed. It is also unknown how the proposed federal AI agency would operate or what authority it would exercise over private sector innovation. Critics point out that, so far, there is no indication that China or other rivals would reciprocate any moratorium, raising the risk that the U.S. alone would kneecap its own technology sector.
As with Sanders’s previous high-profile stands on the left, such as his willingness to challenge fellow progressives after a Wisconsin primary defeat or his public spat with Democrats over Israel policy (more here), his new AI freeze puts him at odds with both the technology sector and national security hawks. The consequences, whether innovation stalls, American jobs and security are threatened, or China races ahead, will depend on whether Congress follows his lead.
For a nation facing fierce technological competition, the real risk may not be unchecked AI, it’s surrendering the future to anyone but ourselves.
