Scaling Laws: Sen. Scott Wiener on California Senate Bill 53

Summary

---

The Lawfare Podcast: Scaling Laws—Sen. Scott Wiener on California Senate Bill 53

Date: October 24, 2025
Host: Kevin Frazier (The Lawfare Institute), Alan Rosenstein
Guest: Senator Scott Wiener, California State Senator

---

Episode Overview

This episode, part of the "Scaling Laws" series by The Lawfare Podcast and the University of Texas School of Law, explores the evolving landscape of AI law and policy. Hosts Kevin Frazier and Alan Rosenstein speak with California State Senator Scott Wiener, a key policymaker behind California's major AI safety legislation, including SB 1047 and the more recently enacted SB 53. The conversation examines the motivations, legislative process, federal-state dynamics, whistleblower protections, and the challenges of implementing AI governance at scale.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Why Focus on AI Policy?

• Senator Wiener’s Motivation ([03:47])

  • As the representative for San Francisco, “the beating heart of AI innovation,” Wiener was prompted into action by leading figures in the local AI scene who raised concerns about the lack of binding safety measures.
  • Participated in numerous discussions with AI researchers and startup founders, learning about both the promise and potential risk of AI.
  • Early legislative efforts (SB 1047) emerged directly from these community conversations.

  Quote:

  “A few years ago, people who I respect and trust… asked me to have conversation around AI safety... We started having conversations with a lot of different people.”
  — Sen. Scott Wiener [03:47]

2. Constituent & Legislative Context

• Relevance for San Francisco vs. Broader California ([05:45])

  • In San Francisco, AI regulation is more of a “bread and butter issue” than elsewhere; constituents are sophisticated and directly impacted.
  • Concerns include catastrophic AI risk, algorithmic discrimination, rapid job displacement, and mental health.

  Quote:

  “They’re excited about AI and what it can do, and they’re also a little nervous... People do have concerns and they're glad that someone is actually trying to address them.”
  — Sen. Scott Wiener [05:45]

• Legislative Tech Literacy ([07:58])

  • A growing cohort within the California legislature is knowledgeable on AI and technology policy, facilitating more nuanced lawmaking.

3. The AI Safety Movement and Legislative Battles

• AI Safety vs. Accelerationism ([10:38])

  • Wiener situates himself within a broad AI safety community, noting most people lie somewhere between the extremes.
  • The debate is less polarized than some assume, but there’s been a notable pendulum swing in industry and government interests.

• SB 1047 as a Flashpoint ([12:53])

  • The bill became a contentious avatar for broader hopes and anxieties around AI.
  • Newsom’s Veto: The longest veto message Wiener’s seen, described the bill as creating its own “weather system.”
  • Both supporters and opponents projected onto the bill ambitions or fears that weren’t actually in the text.

  Quote:

  “It was a little more than I expected... The bill became... an avatar or vessel for everyone’s hopes, dreams, fears, anxieties... Attributed things to the bill that were not in the bill.”
  — Sen. Scott Wiener [12:53]

4. The Shift from SB 1047 to SB 53

• Transparency & Learning from Critique ([17:05])

  • Wiener rejects claims that SB 1047 was produced via cloak-and-dagger, arguing for a transparent, consultative process.
  • Initial engagement from stakeholders was minimal until the issue blew up online.
  • After Newsom's veto, a diverse working group refined the approach, leading to SB 53.

  Quote:

  “Some of the conspiracy theories about it were just truly that — conspiracy theories. We really tried to be open and transparent about the bill.”
  — Sen. Scott Wiener [17:05]

5. The Substance of SB 53

• Key Provisions ([22:10])

  • Cal Compute: A publicly supported cloud computing initiative to democratize access to AI compute resources.
  • Whistleblower Protections: Protects those raising alarms about potentially harmful AI practices—even if not technically illegal.
  • Reporting Requirements:
    • Companies (over/under $500M in revenue) must disclose their AI safety policies or affirmatively state if they have none.
    • Not a liability statute like SB 1047, but a transparency law. Embarrassment and market pressure expected to encourage compliance.

  Quote:

  “If you’ve decided you’re going to blow it off and not have any kind of responsible scaling policy or safety policy, then you have to say that and be transparent about it... there will be blowback.”
  — Sen. Scott Wiener [23:41]

• Challenges in Administration ([23:41])

  • Assigning enforcement/oversight to California's Office of Emergency Services was itself a bureaucratic struggle due to agency disagreements.

6. Free Speech & Compelled Disclosure

• First Amendment & Zauderer Standard ([29:48])

  • Discussion on whether SB 53’s reporting requirement could face constitutional challenge as “compelled speech.”
  • Wiener criticizes the direction of current Supreme Court doctrine, arguing the need to require disclosure for public safety overrides such objections.

  Quote:

  “The idea of saying it's a First Amendment violation to compel a corporation to disclose information around safety or climate... that's also that could be argued to be compelled speech, which would be ridiculous.”
  — Sen. Scott Wiener [33:11]

7. Federalism, Preemption, and the ‘Sacramento Effect’

• States as AI Laboratories & National Impact ([34:30-42:38])

  • Wiener contends there’s a vast difference between laws extraterritorializing criminal penalties (e.g., abortion) and state regulation affecting nationwide companies.
  • California scales up innovation and, by extension, regulation—sometimes ahead of Congress. Yet, a patchwork of rules is suboptimal; ideal outcome would involve federal action.

• The Ideal Role for California ([42:38-45:22])

  • California’s size and centrality to AI justifies its leadership role—though Wiener insists he isn’t promoting uncritical emulation by other states.
  • Emphasizes cooperative state-federal models and the need to avoid “de minimis, watered down, ineffective” preemptive federal laws.

8. Implementation Challenges and Cal Compute

• Enforcement Realities ([46:18])

  • SB 53 lacks private rights of action, relying on enforcement by the Attorney General (Rob Bonta).
  • Wiener expects high compliance due to public scrutiny, but anticipates some disputes (e.g., over trade secret redactions).

• Cal Compute: Public Compute Infrastructure ([47:30-51:43])

  • Designed as a potential public-private partnership, with interest from several University of California campuses.
  • Wiener is optimistic but acknowledges public infrastructure projects (such as high-speed rail) face major obstacles in California.

  Quote:

  "By creating this program, we at least get our foot in the door and can then figure it out going forward."
  — Sen. Scott Wiener [51:43]

9. The Future of AI Legislation in California

• Looking Ahead to 2026 ([53:14])
  • No specific plans yet, but Wiener and a cohort of colleagues remain engaged on AI.
  • Celebrates a legislative year with full gubernatorial approval of his bills.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On legislative transparency:

  “We did that for the precise purpose of saying, hey, world… tell us what you think. And… it was like you could hear a pin drop.”
  — Sen. Scott Wiener [17:28]

• On the pressure of public attention:

  “It was exceptionally painful for me, even though I knew the public was on my side... I have supporters who are no longer supporters as a result of it.”
  — Sen. Scott Wiener [15:47]

• On inter-state rivalry:

  "No offense to Austin, but our dominant role in tech, it is dominant... Texas is doing horrible things right now, but... that's not Austin, that's Texas."
  — Sen. Scott Wiener [51:39], [51:43]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [03:47] Senator Weiner’s path into AI legislation
• [05:45] AI as a constituent issue in San Francisco
• [07:58] Tech literacy within the California Legislature
• [10:38] Safety movement, stakeholder spectrum, legislative momentum
• [12:53] The contentious saga of SB 1047
• [17:05] Transparency and legislative process, learning from criticism
• [22:10] Breakdown of SB 53's main components
• [23:41] Reporting requirements and anticipated compliance mechanisms
• [29:48] Compelled speech, Zauderer standard, freedom of information
• [34:30] State vs. federal regulation—“Sacramento Effect”
• [42:38] Federal preemption, state-federal collaboration
• [46:18] Implementation, enforcement, and administrative challenges
• [47:30] Cal Compute—public infrastructure ambition and hurdles
• [53:14] What’s next in California AI law?

---

Conclusion

This episode gave a granular, inside look at the creation and evolution of California’s AI policy from a central legislative figure. Senator Wiener highlighted the tension between innovation and regulation, the necessity of transparency and public engagement, and the vital—if imperfect—role states play in the absence of comprehensive federal action. SB 53, as discussed, marks a pragmatic shift toward transparency, whistleblower empowerment, and public AI infrastructure. While the challenges ahead are immense, Wiener and his colleagues are determined to keep California at the forefront of responsible AI governance.

---

Transcript

[Rubrik Representative]

AI agents are everywhere, automating tasks and making decisions at machine speed. But agents make mistakes. Just one rogue agent can do big damage before you even notice. Rubrik Agent Cloud is the only platform that helps you monitor agents, set guardrails and rewind mistakes so you can unleash agents, not risk. Accelerate your AI [e-mail] that's R u b r-I k.com AI companies have unique.

[Stripe Representative]

Business models, each with distinct billing needs. Stripe is the go to choice for AI leaders, from early stage startups to scaled enterprises. With Stripe billing, you can support any business model and easily align your monetization strategy with customer value. Join the ranks of 78% of the Forbes AI 50 and millions of businesses worldwide that trust Stripe to help them build more profitable, scalable businesses. Discover [e-mail].

[Kevin Frazier]

It'S the Lawfare podcast I'm Kevin Frazier, the AI innovation and law Fellow at the University of Texas School of Law and a Senior Editor at lawfare. Today we're bringing you something a little different. It's an episode from our new podcast series, Scaling Laws. Scaling Laws is a creation of lawfare and Texas Law. It has a pretty simple aim, but a huge mission. We cover the most important AI and law policy questions that are top of mind for everyone from Sam Altman to senators on the Hill to folks like you. We dive deep into the weeds of new laws, various proposals and what the labs are up to to make sure you're up to date on the rules and regulations, standards and ideas that are shaping the future of this pivotal technology. If that sounds like something you're going to be interested in and our hunches, it is. You can find Scaling Laws wherever you subscribe to podcasts. You can also follow us on X and BlueSky. Thank you.

[Host 1 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

When the AI overlords take over, what are you most excited about?

[Host 2 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

It's not crazy, it's just smart.

[Host 1 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

And just this year, in the first six months, there have been something like a thousand laws.

[Host 2 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

Who's actually building the scaffolding around how it's going to work, how everyday folks are going to use it?

[Host 1 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

AI only works if society lets it work.

[Host 2 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

There are so many questions have to.

[Host 1 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

Be figured out and nobody came to my bonus class.

[Host 2 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

Let's enforce the rules of the road. Welcome back to Scaling Laws, the podcast brought to you by lawfare and the.

[Kevin Frazier]

University of Texas School of Law that explores the intersection of AI policy and.

[Host 2 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

Of course, the law. Kevin I'm Kevin Frazier, the AI Innovation.

[Kevin Frazier]

And Law Fellow at Texas Law and a Senior editor at Lawfare, joined by Alan Rosenstein, Associate professor at Minnesota Law and research director at Lawfare, and our returning guest, State Senator Scott Wiener.

[Host 2 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

As debates over how to regulate AI.

[Kevin Frazier]

Become more partisan, folks on both sides of the aisle can certainly agree on one thing. Senator Weiner is a creative and tireless policymaker.

[Host 2 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

We're fortunate to have him on to explain a major AI policy recently signed.

[Kevin Frazier]

Into law by Governor Newsom.

[Host 2 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

And with that, we hope you enjoy the show. So if states are quote, unquote, laboratories of democracy, then Senator Weiner, I'm pretty sure you are effectively a PhD level scientist. You've made progress happen on housing, on transit, on homelessness and so many easy issues. And, and then you picked AI.

[Factor Meals Advertiser]

Why?

[Host 2 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

Why have you spent so much of your very valuable and very creative political capital on this issue?

[Senator Scott Wiener]

Well, I represent San Francisco, which is the beating heart of AI innovation, and I'm proud of that. We're all very proud of that. And a few years ago, people who I respect and trust in the community who were working at AI labs or who some were startup founders, they asked me to have conversation around AI safety. And so I ended up attending a series of dinners and salons with a significant number of people, really impressive AI minds who talked about the work that they were doing and what they were seeing and the promise of AI, but also talked about the concern and some of the safety risks. And they were worried that not enough was happening and that we were relying on some non binding pledges from AI labs to do the right thing and they wanted to explore a policy approach. And so we started having conversations with a lot of different people. And the first version of our AI safety bill, SB 1047, was the result of those conversations.

[Host 1 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

I'm curious, Senator, since you do represent San Francisco, I imagine that AI is a day to day AI regulation as well. AI policy is kind of a day to day concern to some of your constituents in a way that it might not be to others in the state legislature or across the country. But at the same time, you also, I assume, think of yourself as representing Californians in general. And, and I mean, maybe compared to some of the other issues, whether it's housing or transportation or the ice masking bill, all these other things you've been involved in. I'm curious if you think that AI is a kind of bread and butter issue for, let's call it normies in San Francisco and beyond.

[Senator Scott Wiener]

Well, in San Francisco it's going to be a little bit different. I did have people in, invariably people who worked at AI Labs and other tech workers come up to me on the street throughout the last two years to thank me for my work on it. So that's the beauty of representing San Francisco, is that your constituents know exactly what you're doing. And it's always bad to try to BS your constituents, but in San Francisco, they particularly know if you're BSing them. And so does it resonate with people at the level of housing or some health care issues or even climate? No, not at that level. But people also appreciate that I'm focusing on it, and they understand that. They're excited about AI and what it can do, and they're also a little nervous, not just around the catastrophic risk that, that our legislation dealt with, but also around algorithmic discrimination, around the very, very rapid destruction of jobs unlike any other past technology, and how we're going to deal with that. People are worried about mental health issues, and they don't like it when a chatbot tries to convince a kid to commit suicide. And so people do have concerns and they're glad that someone is actually trying to address them.

[Host 2 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

As one of your former constituents, I can speak to the fact that San Francisco is in and of itself a bubble within a bubble. That may be California, albeit a very big bubble. I'm curious if you had your colleagues in Bakersfield, in Modesto, in the areas that perhaps aren't the beating heart of AI innovation, although Austin may have something to say about that. But we can fight about that another time. Did they turn to you during these AI debates to say, Senator Weiner, you know, Scott, help us. We were not familiar with these AI ins and outs, or was there sort of a group that was helping your colleagues better understand these issues? What did that look like, just from a legislative understanding perspective?

[Senator Scott Wiener]

Well, the good news is there are a number of members of the California legislature who are quite knowledgeable around technology and tech policy and AI. And so for, for example, my, my, one of my newest colleagues, Jerry McNerney, who used to be in Congress, is now, he was sworn into the state Senate last December. He's, I believe, a nuclear physicist and. Or some sort of very impressive physicist, I can't remember which kind. And he, he knows his stuff around AI, and he's been a great colleague on that. My colleague, assembly member Rebecca Bauer Cahan from the East Bay, who chairs the Assembly Privacy Committee. She is very knowledgeable and very active in the space. Senator Steve Pavia from San Diego has been very active. So there have been a number of Buffy Wicks. Some of them are from the East Bay. She hasn't worked in the AI space, but she's worked in various child protection spaces around social media and so forth. And there are others as well. Josh Becker represents part of Silicon Valley. We have a good crew of members who are knowledgeable and active and we also work with members from other states, so from New York, for example, and a few other states. So it's been a good collaboration and we have a good knowledge base in the legislature.

[Host 1 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

So we're going to dive into the details of SB 53 and then sort of SB 1047 previously and all the future stuff in a second. But before we do, I want to ask a high level question and get your sense, since you're very much in the trenches, I think, and please correct me if you disagree. I think it would be fair to say that you are part of the AI safety movement, very broadly construed and obviously that contains multitudes. And if we're going to simplify, on the other hand, you have the kind of accelerationist types. Again, we're simplifying, but folks like the White House and a lot of the companies, a lot of the vc. My sense of following this for a few years was that the wind was very much at the back of the safety types for a while and then that has shifted somewhat in the last six to 12 months. Part of it being what's happened in Washington, but part of it just being the general vibe. Obviously we're in the very early innings of AI regulation and AI policy. I am curious where you think the momentum is or feel free to push back on the kind of premise of the question, whether you don't think that's a useful way of thinking about that.

[Senator Scott Wiener]

No, I think it's in a way that effective altruists versus accelerationists, I think most people are somewhere on that spectrum, but they're not at the at one end or the other. And I think so many people in AI world and beyond want to see AI innovation happen and want to see how it can make the world a better place and cure diseases and make people's lives better. And people want to protect public health and safety and people understand that there are benefits to, you know, the Internet economic model that's developed. And they also know that maybe we should have done something about data privacy a long time ago. They know that social media has had huge benefits for society and they also see the detriments and that maybe we should have done something about that. So people are pretty sophisticated in how they think about this. And yeah, you have the people who are like, you know, accelerationism and just, you know, just keep going and don't worry about it and everything will work out one way or the other. And then you have, you know, people who are just don't want to see anything happen. But that doesn't describe the vast majority of people. And, yeah, the pendulum has swung back and forth a little bit, but ultimately, you know, we just have to make the right policy, regardless of where that pendulum is at a moment in time. And yes, last year, during the SB 1047 debate, I became very intimately aware of this fight and what's happening now with this federal government. And they just want to have pure accelerationism. And I don't think most people want that.

[Host 1 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

I'm curious, how surprised were you that the fight over SB 1047 became such a huge deal? I mean, it was a real focusing flashpoint. I mean, is this. Did you. Did you get what you were hoping with that, or was it a little more than you expected?

[Senator Scott Wiener]

It was a little more than I expected. I think, as the governor, when Governor Newsom vetoed it, it was actually the longest veto message that I have ever seen. It was like multiple.

[Host 1 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

It's a very long veto message.

[Senator Scott Wiener]

Usually it's like one page or maybe a page and a half. This is, I don't know, three or four pa. And the governor described it as that the bill, or said that in the veto message that the bill had created its own weather system, which was true. When I introduced SB 1047, I thought, this will be a typical tech regulation bill. We'll introduce it, there'll be some opposition, we'll have conversations, some negotiations. We'll figure it out, we'll move it forward, and we'll either pass something or we won't be able to pass something. I did not anticipate the scale of the dialogue and the fight. And what was very interesting about it is that on both sides, the bill became, in a way, like, what do you call it, an avatar or a vessel for everyone's hopes, dreams, fears, anxieties. And they were both supporters and opposition or supporters and opponents who attributed things to the bill that were not in the bill. So there were opponents. The bill itself was, I don't want to call it modest. It was an impactful bill. But there were opponents who, when they described the bill, they were describing a bill that was way bigger and more expansive than what SB 1047 actually was. And there were supporters who were putting their hopes into the bill and describing it and envisioning it as being bigger than it actually was. And so, in a way, the bill triggered a really important conversation and forced people to talk about, what do we mean when we say that we want to have smart guardrails? What does it mean when the CEOs of all of the major AI labs go to Congress and go to Seoul, South Korea, and go to the White House and promise that they're going to do safety testing and be responsible? Okay, so we want to put that in statute now. And now they all hate that. And so what does that mean? How are we going to actually do this in a way that promotes innovation and make sure we don't have a catastrophe for society? It was exceptionally painful for me, even though I knew the public was on my side. The polling that was done, including polling that was done jointly by supporters and opponents, showed overwhelming support, pushing 80% support statewide for the bill, higher support among tech workers than among the general public. So I felt good about the popular opinion, but it was painful and I had. I have supporters who are no longer supporters as a result of it.

[Host 2 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

Well, I will save a conversation about the quality of AI polling for another date because I think it's somewhat akin to asking if people think quasars are going to cause the end of the world, which is to say, no one knows, but it sounds scary, but we can.

[Host 1 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

Well, Kevin, now I think they will. Thank you for that. There goes my good night of sleep.

[Host 2 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

Go tell your kids, Alan. Watch out for quasars. But Senator, I'm eager to hear your explanation of the process that occurred between SB 1047 and SB 53, because I come out a different way on many of these issues than you. I think that the important point, though, as you've noted, is you all were very, very deliberate about trying to learn from SB 1047 in a way that I do think speaks highly of the legislative learning process. So you all were accused in the SB 1047 fight of being too insular, of having cloak and dagger type sessions, of really only hearing from one side of the safety debate. What sort of steps occurred between the veto message that was a little muddled about what exactly we wanted to see in the future, and the path to SB53.

[Senator Scott Wiener]

Yeah, and I do want to, before I tell you, talk about that, I want to address in terms of some of the conspiracy brain stuff that was happening about cloak and dagger and secretive. There were people who said that there was a ton of conspiracy brain, especially on the. Am I allowed to say curse words?

[Host 1 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

Incorrect.

[Senator Scott Wiener]

Especially on the shit show platform known as X.com I mean, truly conspiracy brain. I mean, no legislative process is perfect. And you can always look back and say, hey, I should have done this, or that. The original version of SB 1047 was what we call an intent bill, which is like an outline of a bill where you're basically putting it out there to describe, say, to the world, hey, we're working this in 2023 at the end of our session. So six months before 1047 went into print, I put in print an intent bill for the public to see of an outline that ended up being largely consistent with what became SB 1047. And we did that for the precise purpose of saying, hey, world, hey, everyone. Love this or hate this, this is what we're thinking about. Tell us what you think. And I literally took a link to that publicly introduced intent bill and started texting it around to people who I knew would like it or not like it, to VCs, to tech, high level tech people, all sorts of people saying, hey, we just introduced this, would love to meet, tell us what you think. And it was like you could hear a pin drop. And it's not a criticism. People are running companies, doing investments. People, you know, are busy. So we got very little feedback. Then we put 1047 together, and before we introduced it, we were sending a draft around. I'm not going to say who we sent it to, but we sent it to various people who ended up being opponents of 1047. This say, tell us what you think. Some people didn't really respond. Some people said, hey, that looks pretty reasonable, the right direction. And some of those people ended up opposing it. So we were, I think, hyper transparent about what we were looking at, and people just were not focused and they thought, or maybe they thought, this bill will die quickly. We then introduced it in, I think, February of 2024, and for the first time, three months, like there was, it was like silence. Very, very little dialogue about it. And then a few months later, a few of the big accelerationist accounts had a meltdown about it on Twitter. And that's when it started. And then after that happened, we made big amendments to the bill around open source, around the requirement to have a shutdown switch, so many significant amendments to the bill in response to feedback, particularly from the open source community. And so some of the conspiracy theories about it were just truly that conspiracy theories. We really tried to be open and transparent about the bill. But anyway, with that said, after the veto, the governor empaneled this working group, including two people who were opponents of the bill and one who was more sympathetic to the bill. They did a lot of good work. And I introduced the original version of SB53. We took the two pieces that were least controversial of 1047, which was Cal Compute, the public cloud that we wanted to create, and then the whistleblower protections, and we put that in a bill and said, once the working group report comes out, we will consider putting pieces in. That report ended up coming out in the spring of this year, and it had some really solid recommendations, and we included those in the bill and proceeded from there.

[Host 1 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

So let's talk about, then, SB 53. And so, you know, shortly after Governor Newsom signed it, Kevin and I did a kind of rapid response on this, but it's a real pleasure to be able to talk to the drafter of it. As you mentioned, it has the Cal Compute part and it has the whistleblower part, both of which I think are great and probably not that controversial, though we'll get to them. I'm sure there are things to talk about. I mean, everything is controversial with AI, but I think it's probably worth spending most of our time focusing really on the reporting requirements here. So I'd love to get sort of, in your words, your description of what you're trying to accomplish and what you think the reporting requirement is, because having now read that provision a few times, I think there are some interesting. I mean, we're all lawyers, right? This is what we do. We look at legislative text, and we immediately see how far we can torture it. Some interesting corner cases that might be worth talking about. But before we do that, what do you think the reporting requirement does in the main, and what are you trying to accomplish from a policy perspective with that reporting requirement?

[Senator Scott Wiener]

Sure. And by the way, the whistleblower piece actually is quite important because existing whistleblower law only applies if you violate the law. This allows people to blow the whistle, even if it's not a violation of the law, but it's just something dangerous that they're proceeding. So that is quite significant. Yeah. So it's for. Well, it depends if you have. If you're a lab with annual revenue of more than 500 million or less than 500 million, you have to disclose some version of your policy around safety, around catastrophic risk. So if, if, and if you don't, if you, if you don't have a policy, then you have to say that. But now we actually will know because they all say that they have these policies and they're doing it.

[Host 1 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

Okay. So I actually want to focus on that for just a second, if that's okay, because this was the loophole or quote unquote. I'm not sure if it was a loophole, but that Kevin and I were trying to figure out, which is as we read the language. And it's good, it's good that you're confirming this. You are allowed to say, yeah, we don't have one. Right. And, and I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, that your calculation here is there may be some companies that do this, but presumably the market blowback, the embarrassment of being a frontier AI company with no policy will, will discipline that. Is that the theory here?

[Senator Scott Wiener]

Yeah. So SB 1047 was a liability law that you have to do the safety testing and if you don't, something bad happens, you have exposure. That didn't fly. And so SP53 is a transparency law with the whistleblower and Cal Compute as well, but it's largely a transparency law. And so it's not mandating what they have to do. It's saying you have to be transparent about it. And yes, if you have decided you're going to blow it off and not have any kind of responsible scaling policy or safety policy, then you have to say that and be transparent about it. And yes, there will be blowback. And we think that none of them are going to do that or very few will do that. And so the large companies, the large labs will have to disclose a detail, their full policy. They do have the ability to redact for trade secrets and there could be some fighting about that, but they have to disclose it. And then under 500 million in revenue, they have to disclose a summary version of it. We have a lighter touch for those smaller companies. And then if they have a critical incident so something happens that shows, you know, something dangerous happening or potentially happening, they have to report it to. I believe the agency we ended on was the Office of Emergency Services. Oh, yes. One thing, that fun fact for people who don't follow the legislative process. One of the most absolutely annoying part of legislating is that is figuring out what agency is going to administer a law. Because what happens is there's huge fighting. Stakeholders have strong opinions about who or who shouldn't because they like certain agencies or hate certain agencies. The agencies themselves are like, I don't want to do that. And we're like, well, no, but you make perfect sense. No, I don't want to do it. And then you end up fighting about that and then you have to work out who's going to do it. So we went with OES in the end. I love oes. It's great. It's a great department. But it was a process getting there.

[Factor Meals Advertiser]

Fall, it's a reset time. The weather gets cool, you know, back to school. You go back to your routines from summer, the days get shorter and you don't have time to cook anymore. And let's face it, you all say we're going to be doing all our cooking at home and then maybe it doesn't happen. And that's why I like Factor because their chef prepared dietitian approved meals make it easy to stay on track, keep cooking at home and enjoy food that is comforting and delicious no matter how hectic the season gets. You got variety all kinds of different meals. Choose from a wider selection of weekly meals including premium seafood choices like salmon and shrimp at no extra cost. It's consistent with your wellness goals. Enjoy even more GLP1 friendly meals and new Mediterranean diet options packed with protein and good for you fats. And they've got global flavors to savor for the first time. Try Asian inspired meals with bold flavors influenced by China, Thailand and more. From more choices to better nutrition. That's why 97% of customers say that Factor helped them live a healthier life. Feel the difference no matter your routine? Look, I use Factor and I think you should try it too. I think you're going to like it. So eat [e-mail] lawfair50 off and use the code lawfair50OFF to get 50% off your first box plus free breakfast for a year. That's code [e-mail] for 50% off your first box plus FREE breakfast for one year. Get delicious ready to eat meals delivered with Factor offer only valid for new Factor customers with the code and qualifying Auto renewing subscription purchase.

[Rubrik Representative]

AI agents are everywhere, automating tasks and making decisions at machine speed. But agents make mistakes. Just one rogue agent can do big damage before you even notice. Rubrik Agent Cloud is the only platform that helps you monitor agents, set guardrails and rewind mistakes so you can unleash agents, not risk. Accelerate your AI transformation at rubrik.com that's R u b r-I k.com Parle tu Francais Hablas espanol?

[Babbel Advertiser]

Parliament if you've used Babbel, you would Babbel's conversation based technique teaches you useful words and phrases to get you speaking quickly about the things you actually talk about in the real world with lessons, handcrafted by over 200 language experts and voiced by real native speakers, Babbel is like having a private tutor in your pocket. Start speaking with Babbel today. Get up to 55% off your Babbel subscription right now at babbel.com acast spelled b a b b e l.com baby acast rules and restrictions may apply.

[Stripe Representative]

With AI and technology changing nearly every industry, the need for speed in updating new monetization models is essential. Millions of businesses worldwide rely on Stripe to grow their businesses their way. From the latest AI leaders scaling every second to centenarian household names launching exciting new revenue streams, Stripe Billing is built to handle them all. Learn how Stripe Billing can power any business or monetization model you can think [e-mail] billing.

[Host 1 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

So one more question on this reporting requirement which is, and again, I think the self conscious willingness to let companies say we don't have a policy, if that's what they have, may answer this question. But I'd love to get your thoughts on this. So I'm sure familiar with the Zauderer case under the First Amendment for our audience, this is the case that sets out what counts as permissible compelled speech in the commercial context. So basically the short version is that under this Zauderer test, the government can force companies to say things they would otherwise not want to do if it's sort of related to a government interest in the commercial context. And the disclosures are, I think the language here is factual and uncontroversial.

[Senator Scott Wiener]

Terrible decision. By the way. Just for the record, I don't know if you agree with horrible decision.

[Host 1 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

Say more actually. Why do you think so?

[Senator Scott Wiener]

I think this Supreme Court for years has been first of all fetishizing corporate speech. And we saw Citizens United of course is like just the most extreme and destructive and horrific manifestation of that. But we've seen it, you know. And I, you know I had when I was in the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco, I passed a law requiring health warnings on advertisements for sugary beverages that like it's give your kids diabetes. And ultimately we had, that had to be repealed because it was losing in, in court. I, you know, we had and it got to the point where I passed this, I authored this law requiring large corporations to disclose their carbon emissions. It's being implemented now. And the, the Chamber of Commerce took the position that that was compelled to corporate speech to disclose data. It's been rejected by the courts. But like the fact that they even feel like they can in good faith raise that argument shows how extreme the Supreme Court has gotten around corporate speech. I'm not saying that corporate corporations should never have any First Amendment protections whatsoever, but I think it's gone too far.

[Host 1 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

So that's interesting. So your concern with Zauderer is, even though it's actually, at the time it was decided, which was, I think, the mid-80s, meant to actually be more permissive for government regulation than the normal compelled speech doctrine, the fact that it still requires things like factual and uncontroversial would prohibit some government transparency legislation that you would think is appropriate.

[Senator Scott Wiener]

And I should say that decision was not in and of itself inherently terrible. But where it' swhere it's gone, I should say where it's gone from there has been. I don't. Yeah. So I should rephrase what I said. It's not that it's the doctrine that's flowed from that in the coming decades after that, including now, is what's terrible. So I'll reframe that.

[Host 1 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

Fair enough. I do wonder, though, if, given that we have the doctrine that we have, I would imagine your argument for SB53's reporting requirements would be, well, they really only kind of have to report the stuff they've already done. And if they haven't done stuff because they don't want to, they internally don't want to speculate on this stuff, well, then they'll report that they haven't speculated on this stuff. So we're not really requiring them to say things that go beyond zatterer. I'm just trying to think through, because I can imagine that this will be raised by someone at some point.

[Senator Scott Wiener]

I mean, it could. Listen, I mentioned the carbon disclosure, but the idea of saying it's a First Amendment violation, that it's a First Amendment violation to compel a corporation to, to disclose information around safety or climate or I mean, that could mean that the sec, that you can't require SEC filings, that's also that could be argued to be compelled speech, which would be ridiculous. So when we talk about protecting the public, whether it's investors or health and safety, you can require corporations to disclose information. That's not compelled speech in my view.

[Host 2 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

So while we're playing law review, excuse me, while we're playing law professor probing the bill, I would love to get your insights on a question that I've thought a lot about and is garnering a lot of attention, which is you and other sponsors of similar bills to SB53 have been quite outspoken about the fact that you recognize it would be wonderful if Congress were to pass similar legislation, and perhaps even preferable for Congress.

[Kevin Frazier]

To pass similar legislation.

[Host 2 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

And yet you all have proceeded nonetheless, in a way that in some cases folks have blatantly said they hope this bill has nationwide ramifications in terms of changing how AI labs are behaving. And so we're seeing in real time a sort of intended Sacramento effect. And yet on the other hand, in another area where you have done quite a bit of work with respect to reproductive health, there's been a real pushback against states trying to apply their laws extraterritorially and subject non residents to whatever state law they're imposing. So how do you sort of square this circle of, in one domain saying states need to stay in their lane? These pivotal decisions about, for example, reproductive health should be the decisions of Californians, not Texans, not Florida Ridians, or whomever you want to choose. And yet on the other side of the equation, saying California cares so much about the rest of the nation with respect to AI, we should move ahead on what we think will be a bill with nationwide ramifications.

[Senator Scott Wiener]

I personally, I think there's a huge difference between a state saying we want to put someone from another state into prison for helping someone get an abortion. That's very different than protecting California residents from damage from AI or from a company doing business in our state. The approach of SB 1047, SB 53, many other state laws in California and elsewhere, is if you are doing business in our state, there are certain rules you have to comply with in terms of how they impact our residents. Yes. Does SB53 have national impacts? It does, but our approach is we want to protect California residents. And so if you're doing business in our state, you have to follow certain rules. And so I think that's very different than we want to put you in prison if you help someone get an abortion. And I understand someone, you can try to say, no state can ever do anything that affects anyone in any other state. I've never taken that position. And I also think, frankly, there is a, you know, I think it's, I think you can also distinguish that it's bad to put someone in prison for helping someone engage in reproductive health services. And it's good to protect the public from a chemical weapon event caused by a large language model.

[Host 2 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

Certainly different contexts. I will say, though, that the fervor and the attention and the predictions about the importance of AI suggest that any changes, for example, to the training itself or the trajectory of AI will have not only nationwide consequences, but perhaps intergenerational consequences. And so I wonder, is there a level of intervention when we think about AI tech stack, from training to pre deployment to deployment and then on to use? Is there a certain line you would draw where you would say, hey, yes, the odds of regulation at this level, of the AI tech stack having nationwide and perhaps long term ramifications is something that is the exclusive domain of Congress.

[Senator Scott Wiener]

I mean, I think, I think states have the inherent ability to say, if you're doing business in our state, you need to comply with the rules to protect our residents. Does Congress have the power to say we're going to regulate and we're going to occupy the field and states can't supplement or deviate from what we're doing? Congress can have that authority. But it's also, that's theoretical because Congress has not even come close to exercising that authority. I authored California's net neutrality law back in 2018, 2025. There's no federal net neutrality law which has net neutrality has like 90% support. We passed a data privacy law in California in 2018. It's 2025. There's still no federal data privacy law, which I think is just bizarre. And so we have various contexts where Congress has not acted and the states have stepped up. We also have situations where the Republicans in the federal government decide they want to preempt without doing regulation. So Ajit Pai tried to do that at the FCC to say, we're going to eliminate all federal net neutrality protections, but we're going to ban the states from doing it. That was overturned in court. We saw Ted Cruz's effort to ban all state AI regulation without having federal and that was rejected 99 to 1. I think Congress certainly has the ability. Is there really an inherent point where like the commerce clause kicks in and even without congressional action, the states just lack the power? Maybe. But I do think states have broad police power to say we're going to protect our residents from harms and particularly where there's no congressional preemption.

[Host 1 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

Let me do one last cut at this federalism question because I do think it's very important and a kind of very rich area. So I agree with you that from a legal perspective, there's no bar to what California is doing. Congress has not preempted anything. And I tend to be pretty skeptical based on at least my reading of the dormant commerce clause. And I know Kevin and I have had sort of disagreements on this front and you know, tbd that the dormant commerce clause really limits these kinds of regulations. The way I Come at it, though, is thinking about what is sort of a good long term compromise between the need for federal uniformity and the need for national issues to be decided at the national level and state experimentation and the need for states to be able to protect their own citizens. And I guess I myself have fallen between the full preemption and no preemption position. I don't necessarily mean congressional legislative preemption, but just how to think about who should do what. To me, it seems like if a state like California or my state of Minnesota wants to say, you know, we're going to regulate how data centers operate because they might have effects on electricity, or we're going to regulate how AI systems are used, and we don't want AI systems used in, you know, rental, you know, in the rental process or the employment process or whatever the case may be. That seems to me perfectly reasonable and falling on the sort of line of this is something states should do. But, and maybe I'm just repeating Kevin's point here, so I apologize if I am. When it comes to regulating these big, big questions of how AI companies are developing the frontier models, I totally agree with you. As a legal matter, look, they chose to do business in California so you can get your hooks in them, but that seems to be more of an accident of where they chose to develop rather than how Anthropic or OpenAI or Gemini or XAI builds. The next frontier model affects Californians because it doesn't really affect Californians more than it affects Minnesotans. It affects all of us enormously. But isn't that kind of why we have Congress? So this is kind of the circle that I end up coming to or finding myself in when thinking sort of what is the optimal way of everyone to do this?

[Senator Scott Wiener]

In an ideal world, we would have a functional federal government. I mean, I hate to have to even make that statement, but we would. And, and just to be clear, like in the last Congress where we weren't being governed by nihilists, we saw some pretty big things happen. The Inflation Reduction act, huge infrastructure, bipartisan infrastructure Law, the American Recovery act, we saw some big things happen. So I don't want to say Congress can't do anything. I think when you have, you know, Democrats in control of Congress and a Democratic president who believes in government, they can do some good things. We now have nihilists running the government. I hope that changes. But even when Democrats were running things, there was really no tech regulation, meaningful, significant tech regulation since, like the 1990s. And so for whatever reason, when it comes to technology, Congress has been fairly paralyzed. They've done some things. I don't want to dismiss that. But again, no data privacy law, no net neutrality at all. These very basic things. And so yes, ideally we will have a government not run by nihilists and maybe the congressional politics of tech will shift so that they can do some things. I want to make sure that it's not going to be some bare bones, de minimis, watered down, ineffective law and then have a preemption that would be problematic. That would be ideal. But I'm not holding my breath. I will also say that California does have an important role to play. And I agree having a patchwork of 50 different regulations is not ideal. But California has a huge role to play because of our, no offense to Austin, but our dominant role in tech, it is dominant. It's still dominant and still dominant with venture capital investment. And so we're so dominant in innovation. We should also lead on safety, on smart regulation. And I'm not going to be that arrogant Californian who says all the other states should just defer to us and cut and paste what we do. That would be arrogant. And Californians sometimes do have that reputation. But I do think there's an argument to be made that we should collaborate as states and try to create that consistency. I think that makes a lot of sense.

[Host 2 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

Well, we certainly have a lot to debate for another time. Maybe the next time in I'm an SF or I will bring you to Austin so you can get some breakfast tacos and see a space that we clearly dominate in. But I'll leave that for another day. For now, I want to talk about an even hotter fun topic among a bunch of law professors and law nerds, which is the act of actual implementation we've seen in Colorado right now. There has been basically a complete breakdown in trying to understand how they're going to effectively and efficiently implement SB 205, their major AI act. We've seen delays, postponements, some degree of political fracas. And so what gives you assurances that California is ready to go when it comes to implementing not only SB 53, but the myriad other AI related bills that Governor Newsom just signed?

[Senator Scott Wiener]

Yeah, and different bills have different enforcement mechanisms, whether it's private or the Attorney General. And the Attorney General does have a real role to play here. I think our Attorney General, Rob Bonta has been very clear that he wants to enforce these laws not having private rights of action, which in the California legislature probably is in a lot of legislatures. It's very hard to get private rights of action throughout through does make it a little bit harder to enforce. But I think we will have enforcement and I think there are enough people, enough eyeballs on this that there will be. It'll be very public if you have labs that are blowing it off. And I think with SP53 in particular, I do think that my prediction is we'll have pretty good compliance. There could be disputes about redactions due to claims of trade secrets. You could have some companies that are abusive and they redact out everything and we'll have to deal with that as it comes.

[Host 1 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

So before we move off from. From the law, I do want to talk about the. The cal compute portion of it because I think this should not go under, under the radar. I think this is a very cool idea to have this public option for computer compute. You know, right now I think something's very usual about AI is that it's has been. It's a major marquee technology that's been developed with very little, almost none, zero government support, which is very unusual. You compare that to the Internet for example, or semiconductors. And so I think it's great that you're all thinking about how to, how to do this and create opportunity for these advances to not just be in the big labs and just entirely through like VC money. At the same time, there do seem to be some implementation challenges that I'm curious how you're thinking about. Two in particular come to mind, at least for me. One is just the sheer scale. Right. So my understanding is that setting up calc compute, but it's really setting up kind of a task force and task is going to think about it. It's going to come back to the legislature at some point. Legislature is going to have to appropriate within, you know, in the 18 months that that's going to happen. If you just look at the scaling laws, right. We're going to be talking about. I mean I've already lost track, but the training runs are going to be in the billions, if not 10 billions of dollars at that point. California is basically a country, right? It's like the fifth largest economy in the world, I think. Or it's somewhere sometimes with the fourth.

[Senator Scott Wiener]

Large depends on the day.

[Host 1 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

My apologies. Right. It's a, it's a, it's a big economy. But there's a point at which even California taxpayers start saying okay, this is a lot of money. So the first question is do you worry about just the resources necessary to make this a reality? And the second Is doing things is hard. Doing things is hard throughout the country. Doing things in California is often very hard. Right. I mean, California does a lot of amazing things, but then you look at things like high speed rail, not so great. How do we avoid something like Cal Compute with the building and the electricity and all of that, not kind of becoming another high speed rail? I mean, I think I'm allowed to say debacle at this point, though. Of course, you can feel free to disagree with me if you disagree.

[Senator Scott Wiener]

Yeah, A lot of good things happen too, in California, but.

[Host 1 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

Absolutely.

[Senator Scott Wiener]

And we do in California. You know, we have to figure out how to make government consistently work. You know, we. I think there's bipartisan support essentially for an industrial policy in this country, which I think is a good thing, and we have to be able to make that work. And I know there were some issues with implementation of the CHIPS act, for example, and we have to learn lessons from that. By the way, we're working on some permitting reform for high speed rail to get that moving. So sometimes California needs to just get out of our own way because we have a way of just like erecting unnecessary obstacles just because in terms of Cal Compute, the good news is people are excited about it. More than one UC campus has already told me that they want to host it and that they're excited about hosting it. So that's a good thing. And that was step one, because I think, I believe I have to look at the bill again. It's like a request that the UC host it because we're not allowed to mandate that they do it under our Constitution. And so they seem to be excited about doing that. We're also, more broadly, because we have an insane president and insane people around him who have decided that they want to just destroy the country's science capacity and they're methodically destroying every federal science agency and they're trying to cut university science funding. It's just, I mean, insane. We're really focused on how do we bulk up California's science capacity and make sure that we retain and expand our leadership on science. No offense to Texas, but we're way ahead on that and we need to be even further.

[Host 1 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

I'm just going to stick up for Minnesota. We invented the supercomputer, but it's fine.

[Senator Scott Wiener]

Minnesota is great. Texas is doing horrible things right now, but I know that's not Austin, that's Texas. I think this fits into that. That is a great opportunity for California to triple down on our leadership around AI innovation. But science more broadly and we structured counter compute that it can be a public private partnership. And so I think there are opportunities, but I also don't want to sugarcoat it are there. We have to deal with the funding, but by creating this program, we at least get our foot in the door and can then figure it out going forward.

[Host 2 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

You know, Senator, I do have to say that I think some of your innovative companies there in San Francisco are very happy with the data centers we're making available here in Texas. So hence again, the need for some national harmony here on AI governance. But like I said, this will not be the last time we're calling on you.

[Senator Scott Wiener]

I will also say, and I have said this, that because I've been very, very critical of California around permitting in general, but permitting for clean energy. And I think it's humiliating that both Texas and Florida, which are smaller states than California and which both have governments that are climate deniers, both produce more clean energy than California. That is humiliating to California. And I say that all the time.

[Host 2 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

So, Senator, you've obviously thought a lot about a range of policy topics and have in some ways become California's AI guy when it comes to new legislation. Should we expect anything from Your office in 2026 in this area or what are you already contemplating?

[Senator Scott Wiener]

We don't have any specific plans for 2026. We'll see what happens. There will be AI work next year and I have, as I mentioned earlier, a broad array of colleagues who are in the space. And so I'm confident there will be good work next year. It's too early for me to say. I'm still basking in the glow of the fact that this is my first year ever where I had no veto, the governor signed 100% of my bills. It's never happened before. So I'm basking in that at the moment.

[Host 1 (Lawfare Podcast Host)]

Well, Senator, I think we're going to have to end the discussion there. Thank you so much for coming on the show. I suspect I speak for Kevin when I say it's an enormous pleasure to talk to a policymaker who's staking out really interesting positions is very much in the weeds and that you can really get into it with. So thank you very much and we'd love to have you back at some point in the future if you're willing to come back on.

[Senator Scott Wiener]

Thanks for having me and I would love to come back.

[Kevin Frazier]

Scaling Laws is a joint production of lawfare and the University of Texas School of Law. You can get an ad free version of this and other Lawfare podcasts by becoming a material subscriber at our website, lawfaremedia.org support. You'll also get access to special events and other content available only to our supporters. Please rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts. Check out our written [e-mail] you can also follow us on X and BlueSky. This podcast was edited by Noam Osband of Goat Rodeo. Our music is from Alibi. As always, thanks for listening.

[Rubrik Representative]

AI agents are everywhere, automating tasks and making decisions at machine speed. But agents make mistakes. Just one road rogue agent can do big damage before you even notice. Rubrik Agent Cloud is the only platform that helps you monitor agents, set guardrails, and rewind mistakes so you can unleash agents, not risk. Accelerate your AI [e-mail] that's R U B R-I K.com.