Silicon Valley pours tens of millions into 2026 US midterms as AI regulation battle overtakes electoral politics
Long before the 2026 U.S. midterm elections reach their final stretch, Silicon Valley has already funneled tens of millions of dollars into competitive races across the country, as the tech industry’s years-long fight over artificial intelligence (AI) regulation has firmly moved from boardrooms and policy hearings into the core of American electoral politics. Tech executives, venture investors, and leading firms tied to the global AI boom are backing a new network of AI-focused super PACs, which are working to make AI regulation a defining top issue in this year’s state and federal election contests.
This flood of election spending marks a dramatic escalation of a policy debate that has split Silicon Valley for decades. With federal lawmakers stalled on comprehensive action, state legislators in New York, California, and Colorado enacted new laws over the past year requiring large AI developers to disclose safety practices and audit for harmful risks such as algorithmic discrimination. But as states roll out their own approaches to AI oversight, their efforts have faced fierce pushback from the Trump White House. White House AI czar David Sacks has repeatedly framed U.S. AI advancement as an existential priority in the global competition with China. In December, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to legally challenge state AI rules that conflict with the administration’s looser federal regulatory approach, while calling on Congress to pass a national AI framework that would override all state-level regulations.
Clear battle lines have now been drawn. On one side, concerned lawmakers, AI safety researchers, safety-focused startups, and advocacy nonprofits are pushing for strict guardrails for cutting-edge AI models. On the other, Silicon Valley’s largest tech companies and biggest investors argue that overly aggressive state-level rules could stifle U.S. AI innovation and undermine the country’s global competitive edge. Rather than only lobbying against new safety regulations, the AI industry is launching a multi-million-dollar electoral campaign to elect politicians sympathetic to their policy goals. This new wave of industry-backed political spending groups is adding unprecedented pressure on lawmakers who have advanced AI safety initiatives.
Pro-Industry AI Political Groups
The largest of these new industry-backed groups is Leading the Future, a super PAC backed by more than $100 million in funding from top venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, as well as OpenAI president Greg Brockman and his wife Anna Brockman. While most super PACs avoid laying out explicit policy strategies publicly, this political group has been unusually transparent about its core goal: defeating candidates who support state-level AI regulation.
“We are working to advance a single national regulatory framework for AI and avoid a fragmented patchwork of state-by-state rules,” Josh Vlasto, a senior leader of Leading the Future, told WIRED. “That agenda includes growing job creation and innovation, protecting children and communities, and winning the global competition with China. We will back candidates who champion this approach and oppose those who do not.”
In December, the group rolled out its first round of television ads targeting a handful of high-stakes congressional races. One ad targets New York State Assemblymember Alex Bores, co-author of the recently signed New York AI law that requires major AI developers to disclose public safety testing records. Bores is currently running in a crowded Democratic primary to replace retiring long-serving Representative Jerry Nadler in New York’s 12th Congressional District. The ad, which Leading the Future says was paid for by two PACs in its network, specifically calls out Bores’ AI policy work, claiming his bill contributes to a confusing patchwork of AI rules and arguing that “America needs one smart national policy that sets clear standards for safe AI.”
Bores pushed back hard against the ad in an interview with WIRED: “Let’s be clear: these AI billionaires have one goal, which is unlimited power and unlimited profits for themselves. I stand in the way of that, and I encourage voters to judge me by my enemies.”
A second ad from the Leading the Future PAC network supports Chris Gober, a lawyer who previously helped Elon Musk’s America PAC raise more than $170 million to back Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential run. Gober is running for an open congressional seat in Texas’ 10th District. The ad, which has since been removed from YouTube, reportedly did not mention AI at all, instead framing Gober as a “true Trump conservative” who will prioritize “promoting American technology investment.”
Neither Brockman nor OpenAI responded to WIRED’s request for comment. Andreessen Horowitz directed WIRED to a post on X from its head of government affairs Collin McCune, which emphasizes that the U.S. is in “a race with China.” “If we don’t have the right policies, we risk ceding the future of AI—and with it, America’s economic strength and national security,” McCune’s post reads. Gober also declined to comment.
Social media giant Meta has also pledged to spend “tens of millions of dollars” to elect state-level candidates who support unfettered AI progress. Last year, the company launched two new super PACs to back candidates aligned with its policy priorities: the American Technology Excellence Project and Mobilizing Economic Transformation Across California (known as META California). In a statement to WIRED, Meta’s vice president of public policy Brian Rice argued that the “growing patchwork of inconsistent regulations” threatens U.S. AI investment, and that “state lawmakers are uniquely positioned to ensure that America remains a global technology leader.”
Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, a nonprofit that tracks tech industry political influence, told WIRED that AI companies are relying on a proven playbook that worked well for the tech industry during the 2024 election cycle. Two years ago, pro-cryptocurrency super PACs spent more than $130 million, mostly through a group called Fairshake, to elect candidates friendly to the crypto industry. That spending total was unprecedented at the time, and the effort was largely successful. Today, that level of large-scale industry spending in elections is becoming normalized. Many of the same political operatives behind the 2024 crypto push are now working on AI: Vlasto, Leading the Future’s top official, also serves as a spokesperson for Fairshake.
But Haworth argues that it will be far harder for the AI industry to elect pro-industry candidates this cycle. Polling consistently shows that U.S. voters have strong opinions on AI, and care far more about regulating the technology than they did about previous emerging tech like crypto. “I’ve run super PACs before, and I’ve lost races even when we had the spending advantage,” Haworth said. “When you’re fighting against public opinion, money only gets you so far. That’s what the AI industry is up against right now. We’ve seen poll after poll showing that Americans are skeptical of AI, distrustful of tech CEOs, and opposed to unregulated expansion of AI data centers.”
Beyond the new AI-focused super PACs, Silicon Valley is positioned to influence 2026 elections through a range of other channels. Elon Musk has already donated $10 million to a Kentucky race to replace retiring Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, signaling that the world’s wealthiest person plans to play a major role in this year’s midterms. Fairshake, the pro-crypto super PAC, has more than $116 million in cash on hand heading into 2026, and has announced it plans to continue backing pro-tech candidates in the upcoming election cycle.
The Coalition Pushing for AI Safety Guardrails
As pro-AI industry groups pour hundreds of millions into 2026 races, a broad cross-partisan coalition has emerged to counter their influence and push for stronger AI safety rules. Former U.S. representatives Chris Stewart (a Republican) and Brad Carson (a Democrat) launched a bipartisan super PAC in December focused on promoting AI safeguards, specifically to counter the pro-industry groups in 2026. The group, called Public First, says it expects to raise $50 million for its efforts, but has not yet disclosed its donors. Because the group is organized as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, it is not legally required to disclose all of its funding sources.
“There are no secret special interest groups behind us; this was purely Chris and my idea,” Carson told WIRED. “When we saw Leading the Future announce their launch, we realized there needed to be something to counteract them, something that gives people space to advance common-sense AI policy.”
Multiple people with direct knowledge of the group’s outreach, who spoke to WIRED on condition of anonymity, say employees from leading AI labs including Anthropic, Google DeepMind, and OpenAI have all expressed interest in supporting Public First. Coefficient Giving, one of the biggest funders of AI safety work in Silicon Valley (formerly known as Open Philanthropy, founded by Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz and his wife Cari Tuna), is not directly involved in Public First. A spokesperson for the nonprofit confirmed to WIRED it is not funding the group.
Public First has not yet announced which congressional campaigns it will support. Carson declined to say whether the group would back California State Senator Scott Wiener, who authored one of the country’s strongest state AI safety laws, in his race to replace former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in California’s 11th Congressional District. But Carson did tell WIRED that Wiener has been a national leader on AI safety policy, and Public First is supportive of his campaign.
While Public First has far less funding than the pro-industry super PACs it is opposing, Carson argues he has a major advantage: broad public support for AI safety rules. A recent Gallup poll found that 80 percent of U.S. adults believe the government “should maintain rules for AI safety and data security,” even if that means slowing the pace of AI development. “Across Democrats, Republicans, every single demographic group you can name, all of them support reasonable guardrails on artificial intelligence,” Carson said. “I think we have a much easier sell than the other side.”
