Future Caucus, a nonprofit that brings together Generation Z and millennial policymakers, announced Wednesday the membership of its new National Task Force on State Artificial Intelligence Policy.
The 12 lawmakers span the country and both political parties.
The task force was created to serve as a “brain trust for state-level AI legislation.” It will hold public hearings and closed briefings with AI experts from industry, academia and civil society. It also plans to publish a Bipartisan State AI Policy Memo.
The effort comes as tech industry pushback to state-level AI regulation grows and amid the continuing threat of a federal moratorium on states enforcing rules for AI.
The co-chairs of the task force, Vermont Rep. Monique Priestley (D) and Utah Rep. Doug Fiefia (R), both have backgrounds in tech. They spoke with Pluribus News about their visions for the task force and their views on AI.
The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Pluribus News: There is already a multistate group of lawmakers working on AI policy and the National Conference of State Legislatures has an AI taskforce. Why is this new taskforce of younger lawmakers needed and how will it distinguish itself from the others?
Monique Priestley: I really appreciate Future Caucus’s focus on bringing together and empowering Gen Z and millennial lawmakers. It’s very nonpartisan, and there is a different vibe when we’re focused on younger people who are often early on in their career in the statehouses. Also, part of this is hoping to bridge the gaps between all of the groups that are working on this so that we’re reaching people of all ages.
Doug Fiefia: The idea is that it’s not duplicative but it’s complementary. We were very intentional about who we picked and why we picked them. With something as complex as AI policy, we wanted to make sure that everyone has a seat at the table and that we have every voice available so that when we draft this type of policy, we’re looking at it from various perspectives and have as many stakeholders as we can.
PN: Why do you believe millennial and Gen Z lawmakers are particularly well-positioned to inform public policymaking around AI? What do they bring to the table?
Fiefia: When you look at those who are using AI, who are power users, it’s probably Gen Z and millennials. These are legislators who are probably using it everyday. It’s coming from a place of, ‘I know how to use it effectively, and I know the effective way it should be used for humankind and not so much for profit.’”
Priestley: All of us are early on in our careers, and a lot of us have families and school-age kids and may be trying to buy homes. So when it comes to AI affecting our insurance and our health care and whether or not we can buy a home — all of that is affected by tech.
PN: There is a lot of controversy right now about states regulating AI. Congress considered preempting state AI regulations, and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) recently said that idea is not dead. How are each of you thinking about the role of states, and how does your party affiliation influence your thinking?
Priestley: The federal level is in a gridlock and heavily lobbied. All of the interests are turning to the states because the states can actually be the laboratories of democracy and work much faster. [We are also] much closer to the voices of our constituents, to be able to build legislation that actually meets people’s needs.
This is a nonpartisan issue in a lot of ways — everybody is concerned about tech regulation, or lack of regulation — so it is a really uniting issue, which is really exciting.
Fiefia: There’s concern about this state patchwork of laws, but that’s why we’re coming together: to ensure that the best practices are being shared throughout the states and being implemented across the country. Rep. Priestley and I come from different political backgrounds, but I think we share a belief that AI policy should start with people not politics.
This task force is about putting humanity at the center, protecting families, empowering small businesses, preparing our workforce while keeping America at the forefront of innovation. And that’s a bipartisan mission. That’s not Republican or Democrat.
PN: There are different philosophies about how to approach AI regulation. Republican-led states such as Texas and Utah are taking a lighter touch, pro-innovation approach. We’ve seen a lot of blue states trying to impose obligations on both developers and deployers. Can you speak to that?
Fiefia: The balance between consumer protection and promoting innovation is a fine line to walk. It’s going to be hard to figure out where that line is, but I’m excited to have those tough conversations.
Utah has taken more of a ‘let’s regulate the deployers versus the developers’ because that’s where Utah sees the AI race really happening. But we are also making sure that there is transparency, there is consent, there is good data governance.
One thing I’ve tried to express to my colleagues on the Republican side is that guardrails are different from roadblocks. And with something that is moving as quickly as AI, it’s important that we set up guardrails.
Priestley: We’re fighting the same fight, and we’re on the same side a lot of times. It’s really more of the lobbying and messaging that’s pitting us against each other. For instance, when I want to focus on developers, it’s often because I want innovation by the little guys.
I think there’s an opportunity to really try to be clear about who is spinning the messaging and then how we can speak through that to regulate together.
PN: What is your vision for this task force, what do you think it can accomplish and in what sort of timeline?
Priestley: The group generally has a highly technical background, so we can quickly jump into [specific conversations about AI use] in health care, in government, in business. I think we’ll be able to quickly accomplish a lot.
Fiefia: We have the ability to dive deep into specific areas of AI and to figure out: where is that line drawn? I think other state legislators will look to us. Do we come out with specific policy recommendations? Maybe, maybe not. But the ability to dive deep and have the hard conversations that people are talking around will be very, very important.
PN: Are there key areas of AI policy that you are eager to explore as part of this task force?
Fiefia: Education and youth is a huge issue within the state of Utah: how AI is changing the way students learn, how it affects mental health, how parents can stay involved in guiding their kids’ digital lives.
Second is workforce: we need to understand where AI is helping people do their jobs better versus where it might be displacing workers and how states can help with reskilling and new opportunities.
And then third, ethics and transparency: making sure AI decisions are explainable, fair, accountable. People should be able to trust how these systems affect their daily lives. Maybe a fourth would be how states can responsibly use AI in government.
Priestley: I’m curious to branch out myself and learn from some of the other members. I have tended to focus on algorithmic discrimination, automated decisions, youth online safety. I’m excited to learn from others when it comes to housing and health care — areas that I haven’t been able to do a deep dive on.
PN: We live in such politically polarized times, there is a lot of daylight between Republicans and Democrats, and Utah and Vermont are so different politically. What brings the two of you together as co-chairs?
Fiefia: It’s true, Utah and Vermont couldn’t be more different. But that’s actually what makes this partnership powerful. We come from opposite sides of the map, different political sides. But we share the same goal, which is making sure AI serves people, not the other way around.
In Utah I focus a lot on family, faith, freedom — making sure technology strengthens those foundations. The truth is most Americans, regardless of party, want the same things. We want safe technology, we want good jobs, we want a future for our kids that we can trust. If we can model that kind of cooperation on AI, maybe we can remind people that bipartisanship is still possible when we focus on people, not politics.
Priestley: I couldn’t be more excited to work with Rep. Fiefia. Our shared tech background is really exciting; we can kind of see through the B.S. And I agree there’s a lot more that unites us. We all want to recruit young families to our states, we want a strong education system, we want to provide opportunities for small businesses and entrepreneurs.
PN: What excites you most about AI, and what scares most about AI?
Priestley: We have the opportunity to put people first and solve some of the hardest problems that we could face, whether that’s medicine for diseases or coming up with really innovative solutions to tackle housing.
At the same time, we’re moving so fast, and it terrifies me that there’s a disconnect between how those systems work and the information that is being fed into them. And I have a real fear that we’re going to leave humans behind.
Fiefia: What excites me most about AI is its potential to lift people: to help doctors diagnose faster, to help small businesses grow smarter, to help teachers personalize learning. It can make life better if we use it wisely.
On the flip side, what scares me is losing the human part — when technology replaces judgement, relationships or moral responsibility. If we forget that people must stay in control, we risk building systems that serve efficiency instead of humanity.