The Trump administration is taking a calculated gamble, relying on existing criminal and civil laws to hold artificial intelligence developers accountable as AI systems grow more unpredictable.
Rather than pushing for new AI-specific legislation, the White House has directed its so-called “Super Intelligence (SI) Force” to apply laws already on the books.
The SI Force argues it can establish standards for AI firms using existing authority housed within the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission.
Federal Trade Commission chair Andrew Ferguson is among the administration officials already deploying the government’s consumer protection authority against AI-related harms.
“This is an area tailor-made for the FTC,” a source familiar with the effort told reporters covering the administration’s evolving AI strategy.
Despite the administration’s confidence, legal experts remain deeply uncertain whether these tools are adequate for the challenges posed by advanced AI systems.
Chinmayi Sharma, an associate law professor at Fordham University focused on AI, cybersecurity, and internet governance, says the urgency is real and undeniable.
“People want action now because there is very real harm happening now,” Sharma said, underscoring the pressure on regulators to act swiftly.
She also cautioned that the broader legal and tech community has not reached agreement on which specific laws are sufficient to manage AI’s emerging risks.
Sharma said there isn’t a clear consensus among the legal and tech community to “confidently say exactly the laws” needed to manage AI’s risks.
The legal debate has intensified following a series of recent cybersecurity incidents that have raised fresh alarms about AI vulnerabilities and developer accountability.
Some voices in the tech law space are keeping the door open for entirely new legislation designed around AI’s unique and rapidly evolving characteristics.
The administration refers to advanced AI systems as “super intelligence,” a framing that reflects the scale of risk the White House believes these technologies represent.
Whether existing statutes can stretch far enough to cover that risk remains the defining legal and political question shaping Washington’s approach to AI governance in 2026.
