Parents Urge Governor Hochul to Sign Landmark AI Bill in New York

The Responsible AI Safety and Education Act (RAISE Act) represents a pivotal legislative effort aimed at establishing robust safety and transparency standards for frontier AI models in New York. Passed by the state legislature in June 2025, the RAISE Act is poised to become the first of its kind in the United States, setting a precedent for AI governance. This landmark bill has been crafted in response to the rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence, particularly focusing on models that require extensive computing resources for training. These so‑called 'frontier AI models' are developed at significant financial outlays, exceeding $100 million in compute costs, necessitating enhanced regulatory oversight.

The enactment of the RAISE Act hinges on the decision of New York Governor Kathy Hochul, who is currently consulting with various stakeholders as she considers whether to sign, amend, or veto the bill by early 2026. The act has garnered widespread attention largely due to the advocacy from parents and community groups who express concerns about the potential misuse of advanced AI technologies, such as their deployment in automated crimes or even the creation of biological weapons. This grassroots movement underscores the societal demand for stringent safety measures in emerging technologies, as evidenced by the advocacy recorded in.¹

Key provisions of the RAISE Act include mandatory safety and security protocols, comprehensive risk evaluations, and the requirement for developers to publicly report significant incidents like autonomous malfunctions or security breaches. These measures are aimed at fostering a culture of transparency and accountability among AI developers. The act introduces substantial penalties for non‑compliance, with fines reaching up to $10 million for initial violations and $30 million for repeat offenses. Such stringent requirements are designed to ensure that developers of frontier AI models prioritize safety and risk management in their operations.

The legislative journey of the RAISE Act, from its inception to its current status on Governor Kathy Hochul's desk, exemplifies the complex pathway modern legislative efforts often undergo. After its introduction in the 2025 session, the Responsible AI Safety and Education Act swiftly garnered considerable attention due to its comprehensive approach to regulating frontier AI models. It managed to successfully navigate through both chambers of the New York Legislature in June 2025, supported by bipartisan backing and driven by robust advocacy from various stakeholders including safety advocates and concerned parents. Their voices were amplified in venues such as social media, where the potential risks of AI, like the misuse in biological weapons or automated crime, have been fervently discussed, urging swift gubernatorial action to solidify this pioneering legislative effort for AI transparency and safety standards.

As the bill reached the governor's office, it underscored a critical phase in legislative processes: stakeholder consultation and executive decision‑making. Governor Hochul faces the task of either signing, amending, or vetoing the bill by early 2026. Meanwhile, she continues to receive input from a broad spectrum of society, bolstering the legislative discourse with insights from both supporters and critics. The supporters, comprising mainly New York residents and parents' groups, highlight the bill's potential to set groundbreaking safety standards, ensuring advanced AI models adhere to rigorous safety protocols. Additionally, industry players and AI safety organizations are keeping a close watch, considering the enactment of this bill as a significant move that may influence AI governance both locally and nationally.

This legislative journey is not merely a procedural expedition but a stage where societal values, technological advancements, and policy concerns intersect. The RAISE Act's trajectory is reflective of a broader movement towards more structured, safety‑conscious AI development frameworks. This is part of a larger trend where states like California and Illinois similarly seek to impose boundaries on high‑risk AI deployments through measures that focus on transparency and risk evaluations. Drawing lessons from previous legislative attempts across states, the New York version ambitiously aims to circumvent past failures by focusing on stringent safety requirements, while balancing the commercial interests of AI companies involved in the development of frontier models.

AI companies developing frontier models must fulfill essential requirements to align with the Responsible AI Safety and Education Act (RAISE Act). A core stipulation mandates the publication of detailed safety and security protocols, alongside risk evaluations targeted at severe risks such as biological weapons creation and automated crime. This strategic move aims to promote transparency in AI operations and safeguard against misuse of advanced AI technologies, as emphasized in ¹ on the bill's implications.

Additionally, AI companies categorized under this act are required to diligently report any safety incidents, which could involve model compromises by malicious actors or any disturbing autonomous behaviors. This preventive measure enhances accountability and ensures that developers remain vigilant against potential threats, thereby bolstering the overall integrity of AI applications in high‑stake environments.²

Another pivotal responsibility involves conducting thorough risk assessments to anticipate and mitigate catastrophic scenarios. AI developers are urged to prepare for circumstances where their systems might be exploited for significant harm, ensuring that all conceivable protective measures are implemented beforehand. This proactive approach is crucial not only for safeguarding the public but also for maintaining the trust necessary for AI technologies to thrive in the future.

Non‑compliance with these requirements could result in hefty penalties, with fines reaching up to $10 million for initial violations, and escalating to $30 million for repeated offenses. This financial deterrent reinforces the seriousness of implementing the mandated safety protocols, as the bill aims to instigate a culture of responsibility and transparency within the AI sector. By imposing these stringent measures, the RAISE Act looks to set a precedent in AI governance, reflecting a growing emphasis on aligning technological advancement with societal safety needs, as discussed in.³

The landscape of artificial intelligence legislation is undergoing significant changes, with various states proposing and enacting laws to manage the development and deployment of AI technologies. New York's Responsible AI Safety and Education Act (RAISE Act) is a landmark piece of legislation poised to set the pace. When compared to California's attempts, the differences become particularly striking. For instance, the RAISE Act, pending approval from Governor Kathy Hochul, imposes rigorous transparency standards specifically targeted at mitigating AI‑associated risks, such as the creation of biological weapons or facilitation of automated crime. These standards were designed as a less cumbersome contrast to previous Californian proposals, like the failed SB 1047, which emphasized stricter regulations but faced backlash for being overly prohibitive. The nuanced approach of the RAISE Act positions it as a more palatable alternative, likely to influence legislators and stakeholders in other states.

California's evolving AI regulations, marked by the enactment of SB 53, provide an insightful benchmark against which to measure New York's RAISE Act. Introduced as a successor to the unsuccessful SB 1047, SB 53 articulates requirements for frontier AI models with a financial trigger based on training investments surpassing $100 million. This approach parallels that of the RAISE Act but differs in key aspects, notably the emphasis on revenue rather than compute costs as a threshold for compliance. These distinctions not only highlight the diverse strategies states are employing to regulate AI but also underscore the broader national movement towards more comprehensive AI governance frameworks. The deliberative path taken by New York might serve as a trendsetter, establishing novel compliance norms that could be adopted elsewhere as the debate over the balance between innovation and safety continues to evolve. Described by its supporters as fair and flexible, the RAISE Act could prompt California to reassess and recalibrate its strategies, further fueling the cross‑state legislative discourse.

In New York, the Responsible AI Safety and Education Act (RAISE Act) introduces stringent penalties and enforcement mechanisms aimed at regulating the use of frontier AI models. These models, defined by their high training costs exceeding $100 million, are subject to fines of up to $10 million for a first violation and $30 million for subsequent infractions. Enforcement is anticipated to be robust, with state authorities possibly stepping in to monitor compliance and impose penalties for non‑compliance. This emphasis on accountability and clarity marks a significant step towards mitigating risks associated with advanced AI systems, particularly those capable of facilitating malicious activities without oversight.

The RAISE Act's penalties are designed not just to punish non‑compliance but also to act as a deterrent against potential misuses of advanced AI technologies. Companies developing these frontier models are required to publish comprehensive safety and security protocols and conduct thorough risk assessments, ensuring transparency and responsibility.¹ Such measures are intended to preempt incidents of AI models being compromised for unethical uses, helping to safeguard public interests and reinforce the state's regulatory framework.

The enforcement mechanisms of the RAISE Act may set a precedent for AI regulation across other states, given its approach in balancing the need for innovation with stringent safety requirements. The act distinguishes itself by focusing on the training cost of AI models rather than their revenue, thereby uniquely targeting the most potentially dangerous entities without stifling smaller developers. Enforcement, likely to involve state‑level entities such as the Attorney General's office, underscores the commitment to maintaining stringent oversight while fostering a safer technological environment.

Besides punitive measures, the RAISE Act aims to institute a culture of compliance and risk awareness among AI developers. By enforcing the publication of safety protocols, it encourages a culture where transparency and regular risk assessments become norms, rather than exceptions. Such regulatory foresight is crucial in an era where AI systems are increasingly integrated into critical parts of society, creating avenues for potential threats such as the automation of crime or even the creation of biological weapons. As Governor Hochul deliberates, the act's enforcement mechanisms remain a critical component of its potential success.²

Despite this significant public backing, the RAISE Act has also faced criticism, particularly from some sectors of the AI industry. Concerns have been raised that the regulations could potentially stifle innovation due to the financial and operational burdens imposed on developers of frontier AI models. Critics argue that such rigorous requirements might hinder the rapid deployment of advanced AI systems. This reflection on industry concerns is elaborated in a detailed analysis provided by,¹ highlighting the ongoing debate over balancing safety with technological progress.

The potential signing into law of the Responsible AI Safety and Education Act (RAISE Act) in New York highlights the pressing economic and compliance challenges facing the AI industry. According to The Verge, the bill imposes significant safety and security requirements on developers of frontier AI models, especially those with training costs exceeding $100 million. This requirement is expected to increase operational costs as companies will need to invest in comprehensive safety protocols and compliance mechanisms, which could slow down the deployment of certain advanced AI models.

The regulation of AI safety within a social and political framework involves balancing public concerns with the technological advancements that drive societal progress. The ongoing advocacy by parents in New York demonstrates the social dimension of AI regulation, where public safety concerns—such as preventing AI misuse in biological weapons or automated crimes—prompt calls for legislative action. This is vividly illustrated by the momentum behind the Responsible AI Safety and Education Act (RAISE Act), which parents are urging Governor Kathy Hochul to sign.¹ This advocacy reflects a broad public desire for transparency and accountability in AI deployments, showcasing a societal demand for laws that mitigate risks while fostering innovation.

Politically, the RAISE Act embodies New York's proactive stance in AI regulation and sets a benchmark for other states. As the first state‑level initiative in the U.S. aimed at regulating frontier AI models based on compute costs rather than revenue, the legislation highlights a distinctive approach to governance—a response crafted with visible public input and bipartisan legislative support. Political dynamics are shaped by the contrast between states like New York and California, with the former learning from California's regulatory challenges. According to sources like the New York Senate documentation, these regulatory frameworks offer a better‑prepared model for managing AI's societal impacts, underscoring New York's potential leadership in national AI policy debates.

The RAISE Act's enforcement mechanisms, including stiff penalties for non‑compliance, illustrate the political commitment to enforce transparency and safety protocols in AI development. Companies that fail to meet these standards face substantial fines, a measure designed to assure citizens that regulatory agencies are actively working to protect public interests. The act advances political dialogue around AI regulation by setting enforceable standards that compel compliance and foster responsible innovation, pushing against a backdrop of industry opposition concerned about stifling technological development. The act’s blend of stringent regulations with public backing demonstrates a robust political will to navigate the complex interplay of advancing technologies and public safety needs.

The passage of the RAISE Act in New York represents a significant moment in the regulation of artificial intelligence, marking a shift in where the potential influence of federal standards may become more pronounced. With parental advocacy pushing for increased safety protocols in AI, the Act could set a precedent that prompts other states to consider similar regulations.¹ The veracity of this act, contingent upon Governor Hochul's decision, could thrust New York to the forefront of AI safety and education, challenging existing frameworks and potentially influencing national policies.

The RAISE Act’s criteria, including its reliance on compute costs as a threshold for jurisdiction, offer a unique model that other states and possibly federal lawmakers might emulate. This model can sufficiently address the critical feedback that the Californian legislative efforts failed to encompass.⁴ The act promotes transparency and accountability through mandates on reporting safety incidents and conducting risk assessments, but whether these stipulations can be scaled at a federal level remains an open question.

Federal influence, while currently indirect, could see a revitalization with the passing of New York's stringent AI regulations. Should New York’s legislation prove successful in mitigating risks without stifling innovation, there is a high likelihood that similar regulations could be pushed on a federal level.⁵ This potential shift towards federally aligned AI safety standards underscores the importance of monitoring evolving state‑level regulations as bellwethers for national policy directions.

Ultimately, the role of the federal government in regulating AI might be expanded or transformed should state‑led initiatives like the RAISE Act prove efficient in the real‑world application and enforcement. As AI continues to permeate multiple sectors, the demand for cohesive national regulations could rise, leveraging the lessons learned from New York's legislative efforts.⁶ This offers a glimpse into a future where state and federal collaboration becomes a pivotal mechanism for managing technological advancements.