Connect with us

News

OpenAI expands lobbying team to influence regulation

Published

on

OpenAI expands lobbying team to influence regulation

OpenAI is building an international team of lobbyists as it seeks to influence politicians and regulators who are increasing their scrutiny over powerful artificial intelligence.

The San Francisco-based start-up told the Financial Times it has expanded the number of staff on its global affairs team from three at the start of 2023 to 35. The company aims to build that up to 50 by the end of 2024.

The push comes as governments explore and debate legislation around AI safety that risk constraining the start-up’s growth and the development of its cutting-edge models, which underpin products such as ChatGPT.

“We are not approaching this from a perspective of we just need to get in there and quash regulations . . . because we don’t have a goal of maximising profit; we have a goal of making sure that AGI benefits all of humanity,” said Anna Makanju, OpenAI’s vice-president of government affairs, referring to artificial general intelligence, or the point that machines have equivalent cognitive abilities to humans.

While forming a small part of OpenAI’s 1,200 employees, the global affairs department is the company’s most international unit, strategically positioned in locations where AI legislation is advanced. This includes stationing staff in Belgium, the UK, Ireland, France, Singapore, India, Brazil and the US.

Advertisement

However, OpenAI remains behind its Big Tech rivals in this outreach. According to public filings in the US, Meta spent a record $7.6mn engaging with the US government in the first quarter of this year, while Google spent $3.1mn and OpenAI $340,000. Regarding AI-specific advocacy, Meta has named 15 lobbyists, Google has five while OpenAI has only two.

“Walking in the door, [ChatGPT had] 100mn users [but the company had] three people to do public policy,” said David Robinson, head of policy planning at OpenAI, who joined the company in May last year after a career in academia and consulting for the White House on its AI policy.

“It was literally to the point where there would be somebody high level who would want a conversation, and there was nobody who could pick up the phone,” he added.

OpenAI’s global affairs unit does not deal with some of the most fraught regulatory cases, however. That task goes to its legal team, which handles issues related to UK and US regulators’ review of its $18bn alliance with Microsoft; the US Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into whether chief executive Sam Altman misled investors during his brief ousting by the board in November; and the US Federal Trade Commission’s consumer protection probe into the company.

Instead, OpenAI’s lobbyists focus on the spread of AI legislation. The UK, the US and Singapore are among many countries dealing with how to govern AI and consulting closely with OpenAI and other tech companies on proposed regulations.

Advertisement

The company was involved in the discussions around the EU’s AI Act, approved this year, one of the most advanced pieces of legislation in seeking to regulate powerful AI models.

OpenAI was among AI companies that argued some of its models should not be considered among those that provide a “high risk” in early drafts of the act and would therefore be subject to tougher rules, according to three people involved in the negotiations. Despite this push, the company’s most capable models will fall under the remit of the act.

OpenAI also argued against the EU’s push to examine all data given to its foundation models, according to people familiar with the negotiations.

The company told the FT that pre-training data — the data sets used to give large language models a broad understanding of language or patterns — should be outside the scope of regulation as it was a poor way of understanding an AI system’s outputs. Instead, it proposed the focus should be on post-training data used to fine-tune models for a particular task.

The EU decided that, for high-risk AI systems, regulators can still request access to the training data to ensure it is free of errors and bias.

Advertisement

Since the EU’s law was approved, OpenAI hired Chris Lehane, who worked for President Bill Clinton, Al Gore’s presidential campaign and was Airbnb’s policy chief as vice-president of public works. Lehane will work closely with Makanju and her team.

OpenAI also recently poached Jakob Kucharczyk, a former competition lead at Meta. Sandro Gianella, head of European policy and partnerships, joined in June last year after working at Google and Stripe, while James Hairston, head of international policy and partnerships, joined from Meta in May last year.

The company was recently involved in a series of discussions with policymakers in the US and other markets around OpenAI’s Voice Engine model, which can clone and create custom voices, leading to the company narrowing its release plans after concerns over risks of how it might be used in the context of global elections this year.

The team has been running workshops in countries facing elections this year, such as Mexico and India, and publishing guidance on misinformation. In autocratic countries, OpenAI grants one-to-one access to its models to “trusted individuals” in areas where it deems it is not safe to release the products.

One government official who worked closely with OpenAI said a different concern for the company was ensuring that any rules would be flexible in future and become outdated with new scientific or technological advancements.

Advertisement

OpenAI hopes to address some hangovers from the social media age, which Makanju said has led to a “general distrust of Silicon Valley companies”.

“Unfortunately, people are often seeing AI with the same lens,” she added. “We spend a lot of time making sure people understand that this technology is quite different, and the regulatory interventions that make sense for it will be very different.”

However, some industry figures are critical of OpenAI’s lobbying expansion.

“Initially, OpenAI recruited people deeply involved in AI policy and specialists, whereas now they are just hiring run-of-the-mill tech lobbyists, which is a very different strategy,” said one person who has directly engaged with OpenAI on creating legislation.

“They’re just wanting to influence legislators in ways that Big Tech has done for over a decade.”

Advertisement

Robinson, OpenAI’s head of planning, said the global affairs team has more ambitious goals. “The mission is safe and broadly beneficial, and so what does that mean? It means creating laws that not only let us innovate and bring beneficial technology to people but also end up in a world where the technology is safe.”

Additional reporting by Madhumita Murgia in London

Video: AI: a blessing or curse for humanity? | FT Tech

News

Federal judge bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship requirement to vote

Published

on

Federal judge bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship requirement to vote

A federal judge on Wednesday permanently barred President Donald Trump’s administration from implementing most of his first executive order on elections, part of which sought to require people to show documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote.

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper in Boston effectively converts a preliminary injunction she issued a year ago, in which she temporarily blocked many of Trump’s efforts to overhaul elections, into a permanent ban.

Casper rejected the Republican administration’s argument that the lawsuit to block the changes brought by Democratic state attorneys general was premature because the rules had yet to be put in place. Instead, she agreed that the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to regulate elections, and that Trump’s requirements violated the separation of powers.

The Constitution “does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” wrote Casper.

Among other proposed changes, Trump’s order would have required people to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote, prevented mail ballots from being counted if they arrive after Election Day, even if they were postmarked by then, and punished states that failed to comply by withholding certain federal money.

Advertisement

In a statement, New York Attorney General Letitia James said she was grateful the court had blocked Trump’s “unconstitutional attempt to seize control of our elections” and would continue to defend voting rights in this year’s midterm elections.

“Generations of Americans fought tirelessly for the right to vote, and we honor their legacy by protecting that right against anyone who tries to undermine it,” said James, a Democrat.

A voter casts a ballot during New York’s primary election on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, in New York. (AP Photo/Ryan Murphy)

Advertisement

Advertisement

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose state was the lead plaintiff in the case, said the ruling reaffirmed the constitutional principle that it s up to the states and Congress to set election rules.

“While we are proud of this result, we are clear-eyed that President Trump’s attacks on voting rights and our elections show no signs of slowing down,” Bonta, a Democrat, said in a statement. “So let me be clear: we will keep fighting back every step of the way.”

Requests for comment sent to the White House and he U.S. Department of Justice were not immediately returned.

The ruling was the latest in a series against the elections executive order Trump signed just months after taking office for his second term. The Republican president has since signed another executive order on elections that seeks to create a national voter list and limit mail balloting. That directive also faces multiple legal challenges.

Advertisement

Last fall, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., overseeing a separate challenge to the first election executive order by civil rights and Democratic Party-aligned groups blocked the government from taking steps to include the proof-of-citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form. That judge later barred Trump’s defense secretary from requiring documentary proof of citizenship when military personnel register to vote or request ballots.

In an apparent nod to the difficulty of implementing a proof-of-citizen requirement by executive order, Trump is pushing legislation in the Republican-controlled Congress to create such a mandate. The SAVE America Act has passed the House but has stalled in the Senate, leading Trump to advocate for eliminating the filibuster that is blocking the legislation.

On Wednesday, he abruptly canceled the expected signing of a bipartisan housing bill, saying he would not sign legislation until Congress passes his proof of citizenship requirement for voting.

The president and many of his Republican allies have been promoting the narrative that voting by noncitizens is a major problem, when in fact it’s quite rare. The federal voter registration form already requires people to attest that they are U.S. citizens. Violating that is punishable as a felony that can lead to prison or deportation.

In another major voting case, the U.S. Supreme Court is due to issue an opinion soon on whether mail ballots must arrive by Election Day. That could immediately change the rules in 14 states that allow grace periods ranging from days to weeks if the ballots are postmarked by Election Day.

Advertisement

Casper, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, is the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Continue Reading

News

Video: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

Published

on

Video: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

new video loaded: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

transcript

transcript

Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s progressive coalition had a big night on Tuesday. Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez won their Democratic House primaries.

“I see a New York that we can all afford. I see a New York that truly invests in its babies, not bombs.” Reporter: “What’s the first thing you’re looking forward to doing in Congress?” “Well, tomorrow — thank you — I mean, tomorrow morning, you know, I’m going to be back at 26 Federal Plaza doing court watching, and we want to carry that into Congress as well.”

Advertisement
Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s progressive coalition had a big night on Tuesday. Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez won their Democratic House primaries.

By Julie Yoon

June 24, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Appeals court allows Trump administration expanded use of speedy deportations

Published

on

Appeals court allows Trump administration expanded use of speedy deportations

A massive 826,780-square-foot warehouse sits illuminated Feb. 12, 2026, in the El Paso suburb of Socorro, Texas, that was recently purchased by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for $122.8 million.

Morgan Lee/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Morgan Lee/AP

A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to resume carrying out speedy deportations of undocumented migrants throughout the United States, not just near the border.

A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out a lower court decision that temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s expanded use of expedited removal. The ruling was a big victory for the Republican administration, which views the expansion of so-called expedited removal as a key tool for carrying out its mass deportation policy.

Expedited removal — quick deportation without a chance to appear before a judge — has previously been applied to migrants arriving by sea or caught at or near the border shortly after crossing.

Advertisement

In January, Trump expanded its use to undocumented migrants all over the United States. Immigration agents began whisking migrants away from courthouses where they had gone for immigration proceedings and then removing them from the country within days.

“The Trump administration’s push for fast-track deportations will subject people to an unfair and error-prone system,” Anand Balakrishnan, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement.

Balakrishnan represented plaintiffs in arguments before the appellate panel and said its ruling “undermines the fundamental principle that people receive due process when the government seeks to deport them.”

DC Circuit Judge Justin R. Walker, one of the judges on the panel, said the plaintiffs had not shown the expanded use of expedited removal violated due process rights. Immigrants received notice of removal proceedings and were given a chance to respond, he wrote in his opinion.

Walker and the second judge in the majority, Neomi Rao, were appointed by Trump. The third judge on the panel was appointed by President Barack Obama, a Democrat.

Advertisement

Walker said there was no requirement that the administration inform immigrants that they can avoid expedited removal if they can show they have been in the United States for more than two years.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending