Intelligence. Accountability. Analysis.
Est. 2022 · Washington, D.C.
The Congressional Times
★★★
We follow the data, not the narrative
◆ Live Intelligence
Loading...
Analysis Loading today's analysis...
Federal Policy

Voters Signal AI Governance Concern After 2026 Midterm Results

Voters Signal AI Governance Concern After 2026 Midterm Results

Public polling and the 2026 election results together suggest that artificial intelligence regulation has moved from a niche tech-policy issue to a mainstream voter concern, creating legislative...

Gab-E Intelligence Platform · November 8, 2026

American voters expressed broad concern about the pace and governance of artificial intelligence deployment heading into the November 2026 midterms, according to polling cited by RealClearPolitics on November 8, 2026. The report documented what pollsters described as a measurable "AI backlash" among the electorate, reflecting a demand for public input into how the technology is developed and regulated at the federal level.

The timing matters for the incoming Congress. As reported by The Congressional Times on November 5, 2026, Democrats retook Congress after the 2026 midterms, reshaping the legislative calendar for 2027. That shift places AI oversight squarely on the agenda of a new Democratic majority that will face constituent expectations on the issue.

No comprehensive federal AI governance statute has been enacted as of November 8, 2026. The closest legislative vehicle in the 119th Congress was the CREATE AI Act, introduced in the Senate in 2023, which established a National AI Research Resource but did not set binding rules for private sector AI deployment. The bill passed as part of the fiscal year 2024 appropriations package. Beyond that measure, binding federal AI regulation has not advanced to a floor vote in either chamber.

The executive branch has acted through administrative channels. President Biden signed Executive Order 14110 on October 30, 2023, directing federal agencies to develop safety standards and risk assessments for AI systems used in government contracting and benefit administration. The order required agencies to report on AI use to the Office of Management and Budget, but did not carry statutory force applicable to private companies. Under the subsequent administration, the status of that order and any successor directives would require confirmation through the Federal Register and OMB records.

Public concern has been documented in independent surveys. A Pew Research Center survey released in February 2023 found that 52 percent of Americans were more concerned than excited about artificial intelligence in daily life. A subsequent Pew survey from August 2023 reported that 67 percent of adults had heard of ChatGPT, and among those aware of AI tools, a majority said they were uncertain whether AI development would have a positive or negative long-term effect. More recent polling figures from the 2026 election cycle, beyond the RealClearPolitics reference, are not independently available in public records as of this report's publication.

On the Republican side, the 119th Congress saw several members introduce legislation addressing specific AI applications. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced the No AI FRAUD Act in January 2024, targeting AI-generated voice and image replicas used without consent. Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA) and others introduced the REAL Political Advertisements Act, which would require disclosure when AI is used in campaign materials. Neither measure was enacted into law, according to the congressional record.

The lobbying footprint around AI policy has grown substantially. According to Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings searchable through the Senate Office of Public Records, entities including Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, and Meta each filed disclosures in 2024 listing AI regulation as an issue area. The specific dollar amounts spent on AI-focused lobbying are reported at the aggregate client level and are not broken out by issue area in LDA filings, meaning precise AI-specific expenditure totals are not publicly available from that source alone.

Federal procurement of AI tools is documented through USASpending.gov. As of fiscal year 2024, the Department of Defense reported AI-related contract obligations across multiple vendors through its Joint Artificial Intelligence Center and its successor organization, the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office. The specific contract values are individually searchable by award ID on USASpending.gov and vary by agency and task order.

The question of preemption also looms. At least 18 states enacted or introduced AI-related legislation in 2023 and 2024, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. If Congress passes a federal AI framework, the extent to which it would preempt state laws is a legal question that has not been resolved by any court or statute as of November 8, 2026.

What remains unknown as of this report is whether Democratic leadership in the incoming Congress will introduce a standalone AI governance bill, fold AI provisions into a broader technology or appropriations package, or convene new committee hearings before drafting legislation. The House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee hold primary jurisdiction over technology policy. Official committee schedules for the 120th Congress have not been published as of November 8, 2026. Those schedules, once released, will be available through congress.gov and each committee's official website.

Today's Analysis
Loading...
★
Latest Intelligence
Congressional Intelligence
Loading...
★
Financial Intelligence
Loading...
★
Geopolitical Intelligence
Loading...
★
Follow the MoneyGab-E Political Intelligence Investigation
Loading...
Opinion & Analysis
Loading...
Archive
Loading...
About
Our Mission

We Follow the Data, Not the Narrative

The Congressional Times exists because public records are public — and the analysis built from them should not be exclusive to those who can afford $60,000-a-year intelligence subscriptions.

Every story published in The Congressional Times is sourced to a verifiable public record: a court filing, a Senate lobbying disclosure, an FEC contribution record, a USASpending contract, or a verified news report. We state our sources inline. We show our math. When we are wrong, we say so publicly.

We do not editorialize in news coverage. We do not use loaded language. Both political parties are held to identical standards.

The Follow the Money investigations are the heart of this publication. Each begins with Gab-E Political Intelligence running against 10+ million government records before a single word of editorial is written.

Powered by Gab-E, an elite global intelligence platform built to democratize political and financial intelligence.

Editorial Policy
Editorial Standards & Corrections Policy

How We Source, Verify, and Correct Our Work

Every factual claim in a Congressional Times story is checked against a primary source: a government filing, a court record, a direct quote, before publication. When a claim can't be verified or doesn't hold up as originally reported, we drop it or reframe it. We do not publish disputed claims as settled fact.

When we get it wrong: we correct the story directly, note the correction and date at the bottom of the piece, and update the record. We do not quietly edit and move on.

Bylines: stories with a named byline are written and fact-checked by that person. Stories without a byline are sourced from Gab-E Political Intelligence, our automated research platform, and are labeled as such.

Ownership: The Congressional Times is published by Gab-E Holdings LLC. Gab-E, our intelligence platform, powers our sourcing and research pipeline.

Corrections or concerns: support@gab-e.com