AI Regulation Philosophy
A candidate's general stance on regulating AI systems.
Believes that "Utah's 'healthy approach' of regulation that is 'helpfully directive' and 'not destructive' could point to common ground."
Loading policy data...
4 positions on record
A candidate's general stance on regulating AI systems.
Believes that "Utah's 'healthy approach' of regulation that is 'helpfully directive' and 'not destructive' could point to common ground."
Positions on AI systems designed for emotional, relational, or social interaction.
Implicity supportive of Utah's 2025 chatbot regulations through his advocacy of the Utah sandbox model.
Views on protecting minors from harms related to AI or AI-mediated platforms.
Endorsed Utah's sandbox model for AI regulation, which includes mental health chatbot laws.
Stance on federal preemption of state AI laws, states' rights to regulate AI, and the patchwork of local vs. national regulatory approaches.
Desires for the US to adopt Utah's "pioneering approach" to AI regulation at the federal level that allows states to experiment.
Last updated Jul 15, 2026
Methodology