Mike Johnson rejects AI moratorium over China threat as conservative activist demands guardrails

House Speaker Mike Johnson rejected a call for an emergency moratorium on artificial‑intelligence development during CNN’s “State of the Union” address on Sunday, warning that any pause could give China a competitive edge.

Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, said the U.S. must resist Congress moving in “without a clear plan” and urged that AI leaders and policymakers meet to strike a balance between innovation and safety. “We have to resist Congress jumping in and imposing some sort of emergency moratorium,” he said. “We cannot put a moratorium on this because China will overtake us.”

The speaker suggested the White House could host the talks and that he would push for the gathering. “They probably should be summoned together at the White House,” Johnson said. “We’ve got to summon everybody together… I’ll be the one pushing for it.”

A key voice on the conservative side of the debate is Amy Kremer, a member of the Republican National Committee and chairwoman of the grassroots group Humans First. In an interview with Fox News Digital, Kremer said lawmakers should pursue safeguards while keeping the U.S. at the forefront of AI. “We need guardrails that protect Americans while allowing American innovation to lead the world,” she said. “That means protecting children, workers and our national security, while making sure China doesn’t win the AI race.”

Kremer also called for state and local control over the infrastructure that powers AI. “When it comes to the massive data centers being built to power AI, Washington should not strip states and local communities of their authority,” she said. “The people who live with these projects should have a voice in whether and where they’re built. They also have a right to know who that company is before decisions are made, not after the deal is done.”

Humans First opposes blanket moratoriums on data‑center construction while supporting local decision‑making and opposing the use of eminent domain for the projects. The organization has been active in pushing for a policy framework that limits government overreach without stifling innovation.

The debate intensified after Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei called on Saturday for a slowdown in the development of increasingly powerful AI models. Amodei said, “We must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models. Progress will still seem fast, and we must make wise use of the time we gain.” His remarks drew support from other tech leaders, including Elon Musk of XAI and Sam Altman of OpenAI.

President Donald Trump also weighed in on Sunday during a news conference in Ireland. Trump rejected broader calls for a pause and reiterated the U.S.’s need to stay ahead of China in AI. “We’re leading China on AI. We’re the most sophisticated country in the world and, frankly, I want to keep it that way, because whoever wins AI wins,” he said.

Public opinion on the infrastructure required for AI growth remains divided. A July Fox News poll found that 70 % of registered voters opposed building AI data centers in their area, while 30 % supported the projects.

The Trump administration has addressed concerns about the cost of electricity for large AI data centers through its Ratepayer Protection Pledge. The pledge requires participating companies to cover the power‑generation and infrastructure costs associated with their facilities rather than passing them on to customers. The White House says the program now covers roughly 80 % of the electricity delivered to American homes and businesses.

Kremer added that protecting consumers should extend beyond electricity prices. “Americans shouldn’t be forced to subsidize Big Tech through higher electricity bills, tax giveaways, eminent domain or the loss of productive farmland,” she said.

The conversation about AI regulation is gaining momentum as tech executives, lawmakers and the public grapple with how to balance innovation with safety. Johnson’s call for a collaborative, rather than punitive, approach reflects one side of the debate, while others push for more immediate safeguards. The next steps in the policy discussion will likely involve a mix of congressional hearings, executive‑branch initiatives, and private‑sector engagement.