Trump loses more control over AI regulation as Illinois passes landmark law

A few days after President Donald Trump abruptly canceled a plan that would have given the federal government power to vet frontier AI models over fears that it might hobble innovation, Illinois lawmakers passed the nation’s strongest AI safety law.

On Wednesday, the Illinois legislature passed SB 315. If Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signs the bill into law, the largest AI firms would be required to submit public safety plans and annual reports summarizing the results of independent, third-party safety testing of their frontier models. They would also have to report any critical safety incidents to the state within 72 hours—or within 24 hours if there’s potentially “an imminent risk of death or serious physical harm.” And their employees will have a clear avenue for reporting emerging safety risks that companies may be tempted to downplay, with protections provided by the state’s whistleblower laws.

On X, Pritzker confirmed his intent to sign, proclaiming that “Illinois is leading the nation in holding Big Tech accountable.”

“I look forward to signing SB 315 and working with the legislature so that AI, when used, is used responsibly,” Pritzker said.

Leading AI firms supported safety law

Both OpenAI and Anthropic, whose models would be vetted by the state, supported SB 315.

OpenAI’s chief of global affairs Chris Lehane told Wired that the AI firm is pushing to pass similar laws in other states in what seems like a move to avoid having to comply with a patchwork of starkly different state laws.

Anthropic’s head of state and local government relations, Cesar Fernandez, told NBC News that the law’s requirements mirror safety testing protocols that leading AI firms are already voluntarily doing. However, he described the landmark law as important for establishing a “baseline that every leading AI developer is expected to meet.”

Reading between the lines, the companies’ support suggests that the big AI firms may benefit from requirements that they can easily meet but might pose a greater challenge to smaller AI firms.

Scott Wisor, a policy director at a nonprofit called Secure AI Project, which supported the bill, told Wired that without the law, “we’re in a situation where the AI companies grade their own homework.”

Who would test frontier models?

To force companies to be more transparent about rapid developments, Illinois would likely rely on “the Big Four accounting and auditing firms—Deloitte, EY, KPMG, and PwC—to audit their safety practices,” Wisor said.

The required independent audits will likely frustrate Trump, who has tried and failed to stop states from implementing AI safety laws as Congress stalls on passing any legislation.

For Trump, the priority has been to promote AI industry interests, but he began considering expanding federal government safety testing after Anthropic’s Mythos was released and the AI firm limited access due to safety concerns.

Whether or not governments at any level are prepared to protect society from the most catastrophic AI risks remains a major concern for critics who wonder how and when governments will intervene. After inside sources started leaking the details of Trump’s AI safety testing plans, critics warned that even the federal government may lack the necessary expertise to audit frontier AI models. And it seems the same criticism extends to independent auditors that Illinois may rely on but industry insiders suggest some AI firms may not entirely trust.

Adam Kovacevich is CEO of Chamber of Progress, a trade group that opposed SB 315 and counts Google and Apple among its members. He told Wired that Illinois’ requirements “would force companies to expose sensitive systems to untested auditors in a regulatory regime that’s all liability and no standards.”

Illinois had “no choice” but to intervene

Democratic Rep. Daniel Didech, who sponsored the bill in the Illinois House, told NBC News that the “legislation is designed to put up some guardrails and make sure we have some safeguards in place to protect against some of the worst catastrophic risks.”

Didech made it clear in that interview, however, that he never would have sponsored the bill if the federal government hadn’t delayed implementing meaningful protections.

“The states shouldn’t be doing this,” Didech said. “The best way to regulate these types of catastrophic risks would be a federal approach.” But “the reality is that Congress has not taken up this issue yet, and the technology is developing at such a rapid pace that states have had no choice but to step in.”

Once Pritzker puts the law on the books, AI firms will be subject to its provisions starting January 1, 2027. While the legislation stipulates that there is no private right of action, any violations could expose firms to civil penalties.

Steve Wimmer, a senior policy and technical advisor for the Transparency Coalition, worked with Illinois lawmakers on the language of the law. His nonprofit group lobbies to influence generative AI policies and advocates for AI technologies to be “developed and used in ways which prioritize safety, transparency, and the public good,” the website says.

In a post on the Transparency Coalition site, Wimmer said his group considers the law to be “one of the most important pieces of legislation in 2026.”

Pushing back on claims that such laws will hamper innovation, Democratic Illinois Sen. Mary Edly-Allen, another co-sponsor, said her goal was to put “minimal guardrails in place” to ensure AI can be a “powerful tool for good.” By passing the law, Edly-Allen suggested that Illinois was creating a “roadmap for responsible innovation to prevent catastrophic risks” rather than an obstacle impeding AI’s explosive growth.

“Senate Bill 315 is not about stopping innovation but balancing the great promise of AI with its potential harms,” she said.

Didech agreed with Edly-Allen, telling Wired that the Illinois law could become a “testing ground” for AI governance that could show the federal government how to manage risks as public distrust in AI continues to grow.

“Laws like this create a world where it’s more likely for the federal government to pass something,” Didech said.