
San Francisco, United States â In his last few executive orders signed as California governor, Gavin Newsom, whose final term ends in January, issued one asking for independent verification of artificial intelligence models and set up an expert committee to create kill switches for AI agents that could go rogue and cause harm.
In 2024, Newsom vetoed a bill, passed in the state assembly, asking for similar requirements that the governor has now called for in his executive order. Newsom said at the time that it would amount to âÂÂthwarting the promise of this technologyâÂÂ.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 items- list 1 of 4âÂÂIt was fakeâÂÂ: Indian villagers allege forgery behind Adani mine project
- list 2 of 4How Israeli firmâÂÂs âÂÂzero-clickâ malware attack poses global security risk
- list 3 of 4The artisanal miners behind NigeriaâÂÂs lithium boom
- list 4 of 4How Iran messaging highlights cost of war ahead of US midterm elections
Now eyeing a 2028 United States presidential run, he wants to expand the definition of safety incidents, potentially to include the recent series of safety breaches, explore a kill switch and include other measures that were in the vetoed bill.
âÂÂHe is in a lame duck period here,â says Alex Hanna, director of research at the Distributed AI Research Institute (DAIR), unsure that the measures will pass in the remainder of his term. âÂÂHe is setting up his next thing.âÂÂ
US voters are increasingly concerned about AI safety, data centres and job losses, and this could show Newsom is acting to address this, Hanna says.
After vetoing the 2024 bill, Newsom had asked Scott Wiener, the state senator who drafted the bill, to redraft it in consultation with an expert committee. He signed that frontier AI bill, the nationâÂÂs first, into law in October 2025. It asks large developers to disclose certain safety incidents, including the deaths of 50 or more people, large-scale cyberattacks or monetary theft.
Christabel Randolph, associate director at the Center for AI and Digital Policy (CAIDP), says, âÂÂIt seems the governor operated from the premise that a slower pace of regulation would be sufficient because the companies would pace their investments, and did not anticipate that the companies would be accelerating the risks.âÂÂ
AI companies have reportedly had thousands of safety incidents in internal and real-world tests in the last few months. These include efforts by agents to get information from the US Securities and Exchange Commission and Census Bureau, as well as confidential information from Australian and Canadian government sites. AI startup Hugging Face had earlier revealed that OpenAI agents had infiltrated its systems, one among a spate of such incidents.
âÂÂNo governor has been more out-front on addressing the risks of AI than Governor Newsom,â Tara Gallegos, the governorâÂÂs director of communications, told Al Jazeera.
Monopoly of big AI companies
In his message vetoing the bill in September 2024, Newsom had said âÂÂthe bill applies stringent standards to even the most basic functionsâ and noted that 32 of the worldâÂÂs 50 leading AI companies are in California.
Industry representatives, too, had rallied against the bill.
âÂÂIn essence, the bill is creating this disastrous regressive tax on AI innovation,â Anjney Midha, general partner at the Bay Area-based venture capital firm Andresen Horowitz, had said at the time. If enacted, it would force AI founders to move elsewhere, Midha warned.
âÂÂThe bill was unworkable when it reached his desk,â NewsomâÂÂs spokesperson Gallegos told Al Jazeera.
But Hamid Ekbia, professor at Syracuse University and founding director of the Academic Alliance for AI Policy, says industry cannot be relied on to regulate itself.
âÂÂThere is a need to break down the monopoly of the big AI companies,â Ekbia told Al Jazeera.
âÂÂTheir financial stakes are too high,â to self-regulate, he said, referring to Open AI and AnthropicâÂÂs upcoming public offerings and tax breaks that some companies are reportedly taking advantage of to build data centres.
Newsom has now set up an expert committee to examine setting up a kill switch, which had been proposed in a more comprehensive manner in the original bill.
âÂÂSB 1047 [the bill that was vetoed] had a concrete architecture; the EO [executive order] only includes one aspect â the Kill Switch or shutdown/stoppage mechanisms, which is quite different and weaker than the ex ante termination obligation of SB 1047,â which required stronger safety measures even before training runs of the AI models could start, CAIDPâÂÂs Randolph said.
DAIRâÂÂs Hanna says that with the order, Newsom âÂÂis showing he is attentive without planning anything drasticâÂÂ.
Building AI safety in real time
âÂÂWe are building the field of AI safety in real time,â says Rebecca Finlay, chief executive officer of Partnership for AI, a nonprofit that works on technology governance, underscoring the challenges of regulating an industry growing at a meteoric pace.
Newsom has asked the California Emergency Services Office to send recommendations on AI regulation by November 15 and could convene a special legislative session to discuss how to implement these, possibly before his term ends.
This would be in contrast to the federal government, which has pushed for self-regulation by industry. CAIDPâÂÂs Randolph says California could play an important role in setting the floor for AI regulation given that much of the global AI industry is based there.
DAIRâÂÂs Hanna says Newsom is not only looking to show a contrast with US President Donald Trump, who believes in self-regulation by firms and last month signed a voluntary accord with several AI leaders, but also with possible Democratic contenders.
âÂÂWith this, Newsom can look good on the primary debate stage,â she said.
Gallegos, the governorâÂÂs spokesperson, told Al Jazeera that âÂÂGovernor Newsom isnâÂÂt interested in virtue-signalling or chasing headlines â he is leading the nation by taking a smarter, strategic, and effective approach to addressing frontier technologyâÂÂ.
Experts say that along with NewsomâÂÂs order setting up a committee to examine a kill switch, there is a need for measures for controls across the life cycle to reinforce safety.
âÂÂSafety needs to be built in. We issued 12 guidances across the lifecycle when the last ChatGPT model was released. There is a need for safety features throughout the life cycle,â of an AI model, Partnership for AIâÂÂs Finlay said.
As Newsom considers such recommendations from California agencies and the expert committee, Ekbia says governments âÂÂshould take a lesson from what happened with social media. A handful of companies having control were able to do a lot of harm,â and regulate with an anticipatory approach and take on corporate monopolies.
