Voters of both parties want tighter AI regulation, poll finds

An overwhelming majority of likely voters want powerful AI systems to undergo mandatory formal safety reviews before they are released to the public, according to a new survey about Americans’ views on AI, going further than the existing Trump administration policy of opt-in reviews for new advanced models.
The poll, conducted by Washington, D.C.-based AI Policy Institute (AIPI), a non-partisan research organization, found that Republicans were more enthusiastic about government-led safety testing for AI models than Democrats, though more than half of voters supported such a measure regardless of their political affiliation.
The survey results are the latest sign of Americans’ bipartisan desire for stronger AI regulations in the face of advancing AI capabilities, representing a shift from earlier findings that Republicans were more skeptical than Democrats of government intervention on AI issues.
“We’re currently seeing the government take a very active interest in managing the risks of AI systems and deciding what AI systems are safe enough to release,” said Peter Wildeford, the director of policy at the AI Policy Network, a policy advocacy group affiliated with AIPI. “Americans want to do more on AI safety.”
AIPI asked 1,007 likely voters across the country to choose between a small set of response options for each question. The poll was conducted on June 10 and 11 and required participants to opt in to the project from an online research marketplace.
The AIPI poll found that participants did not seek to ban AI systems if sufficient regulation was also an option. Presented with the choice of banning AI systems or requiring AI companies to implement safety measures for their most advanced systems, two-thirds of survey respondents said they preferred having AI systems with guardrails.
Yet when asked whether they preferred having AI systems with no regulation or banning AI outright, voters instead strongly preferred banning AI entirely.
Government oversight of AI systems has emerged as a critical policy issue over the past year. At the beginning of June, President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeting the cybersecurity capabilities of advanced AI models. The order directed federal agencies to shore up federal cyber defenses and to establish a mechanism to test new AI models for safety concerns.
That mechanism has yet to be formalized or announced, and the order stipulated that any vetting would be voluntary for AI companies. Over the past month, the administration has tussled with Anthropic and OpenAI over releasing their latest models to the public.
On Friday, OpenAI said it was forced to release its latest model, GPT-5.6, to a limited subset of trusted partners (instead of the wider public) because of government requests over safety concerns. The government cleared Anthropic on Friday to give a set of trusted partners access to its most powerful Mythos 5 model.
AIPI’s survey found participants also prioritized regulatory oversight of data centers over complete data-center bans. Forty-seven percent of poll respondents said they would allow data centers if the AI systems being developed had safety requirements and security standards, while 38% said they would ban data centers entirely. The remainder of respondents said they were unsure.
The proliferation of data centers has become a hot-button political issue nationwide, increasingly serving as a proxy for Americans’ overall fears about AI systems. America’s data center boom now faces over 300 bans and moratoriums, according to The Information, a tech news site, while independent researchers recently found that data center opponents have blocked or delayed projects worth nearly $130 billion this year.
In the AIPI survey, the researchers found that over 60% of both Republican and Democratic respondents thought the federal government — not AI companies — should set clear safety standards for AI systems and then evaluate AI companies’ adherence to those rules. The majority of current safety guardrails for AI systems are designed and implemented by AI companies.
Over 80% of respondents — 84% of Democratic and 83% of Republican participants — thought AI companies should not build AI systems smarter than humans until the companies can demonstrate that they can control the systems.
Federal efforts to regulate AI have been stymied in recent months, as advocates of more robust regulation have clashed with the Trump administration’s view that such laws could hamstring America’s AI industry and quash innovation.
Just over two weeks ago, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick directed leading AI company Anthropic to take its two most powerful AI systems offline because of national security concerns. Lutnick, along with other senior White House officials, including National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, worried that bad actors could use the systems to carry out powerful cyberattacks.
The survey comes just days after several federal primary elections turned into a proxy battle over AI regulation. The race to replace retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., in New York’s 12th Congressional District drew over $40 million, most of which came from political groups representing AI issues.
Almost three-quarters of all respondents in the AIPI survey thought AI will become a more important political issue in the future.
The Pew Research Center released a survey this month showing that around two-thirds of Americans said AI is advancing too quickly.
As in AIPI’s new poll, the Pew survey found that Republicans are now more trusting of the government’s ability to regulate AI effectively, a reversal from prior years.
In Pew research from 2024, 70% of voters who identified as Republicans or who leaned toward supporting Republicans said they did not have much confidence in the government’s ability to regulate AI, compared with 54% of Democratic-aligned voters.
In this month’s poll, however, the dynamics had flipped. Seventy-four percent of Democrats said they were not confident in the government’s ability to regulate AI, compared with 61% of Republicans.
“I think people in the White House who have been trying to push a no-rules-whatsoever perspective are out of step with the American people on the results of the AIPI poll,” said Wildeford of the AI Policy Network.
Add NBC News to Google
Jared PerloJared Perlo is a technology reporter focused on AI for NBC News Digital.
Badenoch blasts 'moaning' female Labour MPs over Burnham jobs 'quota'

Kemi Badenoch has told Labour women to earn a job in Andy Burnham's Cabinet instead of demanding they are handed jobs because of their gender.
The Tory leader lashed out today amid reports that female MPs are demanding the de-facto new prime minister introduce a 50:50 gender split 'quota' in his government.
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister also complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts.
But in a scathing article in the Times today Mrs Badenoch told them to 'stop moaning' and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'.
'There are many, many reasons why you shouldn't have any Milibands in the cabinet,' she said.
'But complaining that the boys haven't given them the right jobs or that the boys are taking all the jobs, just shows that Labour's women still don't get it.'
The idea of quotas was also attacked by Baroness Jacqui Smith, Labour's Skills Minister.
Asked by Times Radio if Mr Burnham should reserve jobs for women, she said: 'No, I think what Andy Burnham should be doing is building the very best team around him to change this country.'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband (above, right, in 2010) is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts
But Mrs Badenoch told them to pipe down and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party and seen by the BBC has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs after he succeeds Sir Keir Starmer.
'We are asking you to demonstrate this change from day one and address the toxicity and misogyny within our own party and government,' it said.
Labour has never had a female leader, while the Conservatives have had three, and Mrs Badenoch urged the government to follow its meritocratic example.
'If you run a meritocracy, then you do not have to worry about jobs for the boys,' she wrote.
'Every woman who is a Conservative MP, every woman who has ever won the leadership, has had to fight to get where she is.
'By contrast, Labour women are demanding guarantees from Burnham. But the truth is he doesn't have to give any guarantees.
'If none of Labour's women are prepared to get their hands dirty and challenge him for the leadership, their demands are toothless.'
'In fact, it's quite revealing that the women's parliamentary Labour Party has written to Burnham asking him to commit himself to at least 50 per cent female ministers.
'This has nothing to do with meritocracy. It is yet more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country.'