Fifty States, Zero Agreement
What government is and isn't regulating in tech. From a Capitol insider turned founder.
 | Laura Luise Davis, Co-Founder & CBO at USLege |
LETTER FROM THE EDITOR
I have sat in more hearing rooms than I can count. This week three of them didn't even happen, because nobody in government has scheduled one yet.
Beijing put 2,056 robots through work shifts, a Silicon Valley startup pitched a humanoid for the border, and a hurricane model quietly bought forecasters an extra day of warning. All three landed inside the same two-week window. Only one of them has a member of Congress on record talking about it.
I am pro-technology. But being pro-technology is not the same as looking away from it. Every week I watch what government is, and is not, regulating.
The future is in session, whether our legislatures show up for it or not.
Laura
///
THE FUTURE, SHIPPED
Three things shipped in the last two weeks that sound like science fiction. And the question I keep asking: is anyone in government regulating them?
2,056 robots went to a jobs fair in Beijing. It was called the Olympics.
What happened. The World Humanoid Robot Games ran in Beijing August 22–26, with 2,056 robots and 666 teams from 16 countries, 96% of them Chinese-built. The events themselves have shifted: fewer track-and-field stunts, more work scenarios, factory assembly, hotel housekeeping, library sorting, where a robot that completes the task fully autonomously scores double the points of one being teleoperated by a human. This isn't a robot Olympics anymore. It's a hiring competition.
What was said. “Once robots master these ‘last-meter’ skills, they can turn medals into orders and move directly from the competition arena to real-world workplaces.”
Jiang Guangzhi, Director, Beijing Bureau of Economy and Information Technology.
▪ IS ANYONE REGULATING THIS?
Congress is talking about it, but not about the labor question. Two bills are pending right now: the National Commission on Robotics Act (S.4686/H.R.7334) would stand up a federal commission to study robotics competitiveness and workforce impact, and the American Security Robotics Act (H.R.8189/S.4235) would restrict federal purchase and use of robots built by companies tied to countries of concern, squarely aimed at exactly the kind of Chinese hardware that dominated this competition. The convergence here isn't hypothetical. Dr. Rush Doshi, a China-policy fellow at CFR and Georgetown and a former senior director for China at the National Security Council, told the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection in March: “Unitree's quadruped robots have been shown to have backdoor camera access. Its humanoid robots transmit data back to China every five minutes.” No hearing yet has taken up what happens when those same robots start doing the work, not just watching it.
Rush Doshi, CFR & Georgetown · House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Protection, Mar 17, 2026
A Silicon Valley startup wants to put a humanoid robot at the border.
What happened. Foundation, a San Francisco robotics startup, confirmed on August 19 that it is pitching its Phantom MK-1 humanoid to the Department of Homeland Security and other national security agencies for border surveillance work. The company already holds $24 million in federal research contracts and has sent robots to Ukraine for logistics support. This is a private company actively negotiating to put a humanoid on the U.S. border before any agency has a framework for what that robot is allowed to do there.
What was said. “We're in conversations with almost all national security government bodies… we're starting to negotiate contracts.”
Sankaet Pathak, CEO, Foundation, to Fox News, Aug 19, 2026.
DHS's own response, relayed in the same report, was that the department currently has no non-contractual agreements, pilots, or active prime contracts with Foundation. Read that gap twice. The CEO says negotiations are underway. The agency says nothing exists yet. Both can be true at once, and that's exactly the window where policy doesn't exist.
▪ IS ANYONE REGULATING THIS?
No. I ran this through USLege looking for any hearing, bill, or floor statement specifically about humanoid robots in border or perimeter security, and came up empty. The closest adjacent material is a TSA modernization hearing that touched counter-drone and perimeter-sensor systems, and it never mentioned a humanoid. If a company is already negotiating to put a robot at the border, and no committee has held a hearing on what that robot can record, retain, or share, that is the story: not that Congress is regulating this wrong, but that Congress isn't in the room yet.
An AI model just bought hurricane forecasters an extra day.
A note on timing: Google DeepMind announced this on August 6, more than two weeks before this issue. I'm including it anyway because it's still generating fresh coverage and, more importantly, it converges directly with money Congress is moving right now.
What happened. Google DeepMind's WeatherNext Cyclones model gives hurricane forecasters more than 30 hours of additional warning time. In backtesting, its five-day track error was 230 kilometers versus 370 kilometers for Europe's ENS model, and blending it into the consensus forecast improved track accuracy by 28% and intensity accuracy by 6%.
What was said. “Cutting programs that improve hurricane and tornado forecasting is the very definition of penny wise and pound foolish.”
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member, House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, at a NOAA FY2027 budget hearing. That's Congress, not DeepMind, making the case for exactly the kind of forecasting investment this model represents. Separately, Evan Thompson, Director of the Meteorological Service of Jamaica, put the human stakes plainly: “With early evacuation and better preparation, that reduction in harm really does make a difference to our people. It does actually save their lives, and it saves the livelihoods that they want to secure.”
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member, House Science · NOAA FY2027 budget hearing
▪ IS ANYONE REGULATING THIS?
Yes, actually, and it's a rare good-news answer. The Senate marked up the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Reauthorization Act (S.3923) in March, alongside the Hurricane Forecast Improvement Program Enhancement Act (S.3919) and the House's Advanced Weather Model Computing Development Act (H.R.4141). All three would fund exactly the AI-based forecasting infrastructure that produced WeatherNext, even as the same budget hearing revealed a proposed 26% cut to NOAA's overall budget and elimination of the Hurricane Research Division that does this research in-house. Congress is trying to buy more of this technology with one hand while the administration's budget request would defund the agency that builds it with the other.
///
MEANWHILE, IN GOVERNMENT
A truck with no driver is legal in some states and a firing offense in others. Nobody has settled which country we actually live in.
Washington wants to let trucking companies grade their own safety homework.
The SELF DRIVE Act of 2026 (H.R.7390, Rep. Robert Latta, R-OH) would let autonomous vehicle manufacturers self-certify that their vehicles are safe, without a full federal review before deployment. It advanced out of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade on a 12-11 party-line vote in February. Todd Spencer, President of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, has criticized both the self-certification model and what he calls weak cybersecurity provisions in the bill.
At the markup, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., the committee's Ranking Member, voted no and used a personal-privilege statement to lay out why: the bill's federal preemption reaches too far, its safety-case standard isn't rigorous enough, its data-collection rules aren't transparent enough, and its exemptions for commercial operation are too broad. That is the federal half of this fight. The state half is uglier.
Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., Ranking Member · House Energy & Commerce markup, Feb 10, 2026
On August 5, Teamsters California sued the state DMV over its approval of driverless heavy trucks, arguing the agency approved the change without adequate public input. “Such a critical decision with life-and-death consequences must involve public input,” said Peter Finn, co-chair of Teamsters California. A Texas Teamsters official, Brent Taylor, put the union's national position more bluntly: “Requiring a human operator in a driverless truck isn't unreasonable, it's common sense.”
Meanwhile Texas already answered that question, by law, the opposite way for exactly one category: H.B. 4402, effective September 2025, allows non-commercial autonomous vehicles to run with nobody inside, but requires a human operator to be physically present in commercial automated vehicles, the exact category of truck the Teamsters are suing over in California. Colorado's governor has vetoed a human-in-the-cab mandate twice; Alaska's version of that same bill is still sitting in committee, not yet law in either direction.
///
THE HEAT MAP
This week's question: must a human be physically present in an autonomous commercial truck? State by state.
| AL | AK | AZ | AR | CA | CO | CT | DE | FL | GA |
| HI | ID | IL | IN | IA | KS | KY | LA | ME | MD |
| MA | MI | MN | MS | MO | MT | NE | NV | NH | NJ |
| NM | NY | NC | ND | OH | OK | OR | PA | RI | SC |
| SD | TN | TX | UT | VT | VA | WA | WV | WI | WY |
| DC |
COLOR KEY human required, enacted · no human required, enacted · mixed / pending / contested · checked, nothing currently in force
- Human required, enacted: Texas is the only state with a law actually in force requiring a human operator in a commercial AV (H.B. 4402, effective Sept. 2025).
- No human required, enacted: Alabama (SB 226, 2024), Louisiana (SB 133, certification-based driverless commercial operation, effective Aug. 2026), Mississippi (SB 2269 extends the state's existing Fully Autonomous Vehicle Enabling Act), Montana (SB 67/HB 97), Utah (SB 292, liability framework for Level 4/5 AVs, signed).
- Mixed, pending, or contested: more than 20 states have a bill sitting in committee, on a study track, or otherwise unresolved this session, running in both directions at once. Restrictive human-in-the-cab bills are pending in Alaska (HB 217), Delaware (SB 46), Tennessee (HB 1168/SB 310), Washington (SB 5042/HB 1984), and Wisconsin (AB 848/SB 831, which would also stand up a state Autonomous Driving Safety Board). Permissive frameworks are pending in Oregon (HB 4085), Pennsylvania (a study resolution on driverless-vehicle safety and workforce impact), and Washington, D.C. (two competing AV deployment bills). Iowa has competing tracks moving in opposite directions: a human-required bill (HF 2375) stalled in subcommittee while the permissive companion bills SF 2384/HF 2673 advanced further, reaching the floor calendar. New York's pilot (A.B. 11500) is real but narrow, two counties, through 2028, not a statewide law. Missouri has bills mandating a human in the cab, a fully permissive framework, and a bill letting cities opt out and ban AVs entirely, all in the same session. Also pending or contested: Arizona, California (DMV approved driverless heavy trucks; Teamsters California is now suing over that approval), Colorado (the legislature has passed a human-in-the-cab mandate twice; the governor has vetoed it twice), Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Virginia.
- Checked, nothing currently in force: Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming were each individually searched this issue; none currently has a human-required or permissive AV-trucking law in force. Several (Nevada, Florida, New Mexico, North Dakota) saw a bill on this exact question die in committee or on the floor this cycle.
- Federal: H.R. 7390 (SELF DRIVE Act, self-certification model, advancing) and H.R. 4661 (AMERICA DRIVES Act, would preempt all state human-in-cab mandates, pending) point in the permissive direction; neither has passed.
How this map was built: an individual, state-by-state USLege bill search for every one of the 50 states plus D.C., not a single national query. Colors reflect each bill's confirmed current status (from its actual legislative action history) rather than its title or proposed effect if passed: a pending bill is orange regardless of which direction it points. Link policy this issue: Texas H.B. 4402 and the two federal bills below are hyperlinked because their official pages were confirmed working. Every other state bill named above (Alaska HB 217, Alabama SB 226, Delaware SB 46, Iowa SF 2384/HF 2673/HF 2375, Louisiana SB 133, Mississippi SB 2269, Montana SB 67/HB 97, New York A.B. 11500, Oregon HB 4085, Tennessee HB 1168/SB 310, Utah SB 292, Washington SB 5042/HB 1984, and Wisconsin AB 848/SB 831) is cited by number only, unlinked, because its official page could not be verified against a working URL before deadline. That's a gap to close next issue, not a claim those links exist.
///
THE BIG QUESTION
Right now, a truck can legally drive itself with an empty cab in Montana, and it is against the law for that same truck to have an empty cab three states over in Texas, where the legislature has already decided the opposite answer for the exact same technology. Meanwhile more than twenty other states have a bill sitting in committee that could push them either way. Congress could settle this with the SELF DRIVE Act's self-certification model, or it could pass the version the Teamsters are demanding, or it could do nothing and let fifty different legislatures keep answering the same physics problem fifty different ways. Which failure mode worries you more: a Congress that moves too fast and lets industry grade its own safety homework, or a country that never agrees on an answer at all?
I want to know what you think. Reply to this email, I read and answer as many as I can.
///
WHO'S WRITING
| Laura Luise Davis, Capitol insider to tech founder. |
I'm a lobbyist turned founder turned coder. I know a lot of lobbyists. And legislators. And agency leaders. They're my customers. Now I spend hours every day inside AI, sharing what I'm realizing and what government is and isn't regulating. This is not a how-to. It's a warning about what's coming.
WHO IT'S FOR
Tech: Cool. DM me if you need help.
Gov: You need to learn what's happening in tech.
Lobby: You're really going to want to read this.
Send this to someone. Know a founder about to get blindsided by a state law, or a policy person who'd rather see it coming? Forward this. SESSION grows by word of mouth.
Are you in tech and want to be on my podcast, Bills & Business? Reach out to me: [email protected].
WEBSITE · LINKEDIN · PODCAST · SPEAKING · DEMO
FOLLOW X · LINKEDIN · INSTAGRAM · YOUTUBE · TIKTOK
Book a demo · Written by Laura Luise Davis, Co-Founder & CBO at USLege · lauraluisedavis.com · AUSTIN · DC
SOURCES: World Humanoid Robot Games coverage (Beijing, Aug 22–26, 2026); Foundation/Phantom MK-1 reporting via Fox News, Aug 19, 2026; Google DeepMind WeatherNext Cyclones (Aug 6, 2026); USLege clips (above): Rush Doshi, House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection (Mar 17, 2026); Frank Pallone, House Energy & Commerce markup (Feb 10, 2026); Zoe Lofgren, NOAA FY2027 budget hearing. Bills: S.4686/H.R.7334, H.R.8189/S.4235, S.3923, S.3919, H.R.4141, H.R.7390, H.R.4661, and the state AV bills cited in the heat map. Texas H.B. 4402 and the two federal SELF DRIVE/AMERICA DRIVES bills are hyperlinked to a confirmed working page; every other state bill named in the heat map is cited by number only, unlinked, pending link verification (see the map's methodology note). Heat map: individual USLege bill search of all 50 states plus D.C.; editorial classification by status, USLege.