1. A call to put AI and crypto in lawmakers' hands
The AI regulation Congress takes up in 2027 should be written by people who have used the technology themselves, Allie Page, executive director of the American Innovation Project, argued in an opinion piece published on November 12. With the 120th Congress arriving in January 2027, she urged industry to give members and staff direct, hands-on exposure to AI, crypto and prediction markets.
Page's case rests on a simple principle, which she summed up as the idea that the people writing the rules should have hands-on experience with the technologies they regulate. In her view, the timing makes that principle urgent. The 2026 election, she wrote, made clear that artificial intelligence and what she called super intelligence are headed for regulation, and voters pushed data centers, AI and other new technology into campaign debates this fall.
Each Congress runs for two years, and the 120th will be the first to meet after the 2026 midterm elections. Its members will inherit unresolved debates over how to oversee artificial intelligence, how to structure markets for digital assets and how to treat newer products such as event contracts. Page's piece is an attempt to influence not the outcome of those debates directly, but the way lawmakers prepare for them.
The piece is an argument rather than a news report, and it reflects the perspective of an organization that works to connect policymakers with builders of emerging technology. Its central recommendation is aimed at companies: show up, bring the products, and let lawmakers ask questions.
2. What voters told pollsters about technology
Page pointed to polling to show that Americans are uneasy about new technology even as they adopt it. Research by Ipsos found that 63% of Americans believe the financial system needs an upgrade to cope with threats such as AI, and 74% said financial privacy is important to them. Nearly three in four said it matters to them whether a candidate supports building next-generation financial technology in the United States.
She also cited Pew findings that half of Americans now use AI chatbots, up from one in three in 2024. Taken together, Page argued, the numbers describe a public that is worried about emerging technology, is using more of it every year, and wants it developed at home.
That combination of anxiety and adoption is a familiar pattern in technology policy. It tends to produce pressure on lawmakers to act, while leaving open the question of whether the rules they write will protect people without pushing development elsewhere. Page's argument is aimed squarely at that gap.
3. Why does hands-on experience matter for AI regulation in Congress?
Hands-on experience matters, Page argued, because whether the United States builds these technologies is ultimately a policy outcome, and good policy depends on lawmakers who understand what they are regulating. She framed the distance between how fast technology moves and how well Washington grasps it as the factor that will decide whether the country leads or falls behind China.
Direct use changes the kind of questions officials ask, she wrote. Members who have tried a product themselves can press on specifics that come from their own experience, rather than relying on second-hand explanations delivered in briefings or hearings. Speaking with people who use these tools every day also gives lawmakers the chance to raise concerns in real time and hear answers straight away.
The argument applies broadly. Rules for fast-moving fields often hinge on technical distinctions, such as who holds custody of an asset, how a model is released, or how a market settles its contracts. A legislator who has seen those mechanics up close is better placed to judge where the real risks lie and which proposals would work in practice.
Page's reference to China reflects a theme that runs through much of the debate in Washington over AI and digital assets. Supporters of a lighter-touch approach often argue that rules written without a clear understanding of the technology could drive companies and talent overseas, while critics warn that moving too slowly leaves consumers exposed. Page's proposal does not settle that argument, but it aims to ensure that whichever side lawmakers take, they take it with firsthand knowledge.
4. Some tools are easy to try, others need a guide
Page drew a line between technologies a member can test alone in a few minutes and those that are best understood with help. In the first group she placed tasks such as sending a stablecoin out of a centralized exchange, asking an AI chatbot a question about one's own district, or looking at the results on a prediction market.
Stablecoins are crypto tokens designed to hold a steady value, usually one US dollar, and they have become a central topic in Washington's debates over digital asset rules. Prediction markets let users trade contracts tied to the outcome of real-world events, and their growth has drawn attention from regulators and state officials alike. Both are concrete enough that a few minutes of use can make the policy debate far less abstract.
Other subjects are harder to absorb without a demonstration or a developer in the room, Page wrote. Her examples included the difference between centralized and decentralized finance, the split between open-source and closed-source AI models, and innovation tied to national security. These are areas where the distinctions carry real consequences for how rules should be written, and where a guided walkthrough can clear up confusion that a written memo might leave in place.
5. The August session with 30 members of Congress
Page offered an example from her own organization. In August 2026, she wrote, 30 members of Congress from both parties spent a full day at the American Innovation Project with people building emerging technology businesses.
The format was designed to reverse the usual dynamic. Instead of lawmakers being questioned, the members did the interviewing, putting their questions to industry leaders. The conversations covered market structure, consumer privacy, defense technology and data centers. The day was held off the record, which Page presented as a way to encourage candid exchanges.
She said she wants to see many more sessions like it once the new Congress is seated. In her telling, the value lies in giving members the chance to probe the technology and the people behind it on their own terms, rather than through the filter of formal hearings or prepared lobbying pitches.
Page did not present the session as a substitute for formal oversight. Rather, she framed it as preparation: a way for members to arrive at hearings, markups and negotiations already familiar with the products and the business models behind them, so that their questions in those settings are sharper and more grounded.
6. Why the incoming class of lawmakers is the target
The 120th Congress will include a large class of new members arriving in January 2027, Page noted, and many of them will face constituents who want things to work better. Most of these newcomers have not yet settled their views on AI, crypto, prediction markets or the infrastructure that supports them.
That is precisely why the early months matter, she argued. First-term members are still hiring staff, building networks and choosing priorities. The experiences they have in that window are likely to shape the legislation they support later on. A lawmaker whose first encounter with a technology is a hands-on demonstration may approach it differently from one whose first encounter is a headline about a failure or a scandal.
For industry, the implication is that the next few months represent an unusual opportunity. Positions that are not yet fixed can still be informed by direct experience, while views formed later may be harder to shift.
7. Congressional staff and the drafting of rules
Page extended the same reasoning to the aides who do much of the detailed work on Capitol Hill. New offices hire their legislative teams within the first few weeks, she wrote, and those staffers are the ones who sit in meetings with industry and draft the actual text of bills.
Many staff members who handle technology policy are learning the subject as they go, according to Page. That makes their exposure to the tools just as important as that of the members they work for. A staffer who has used a stablecoin wallet or tested an AI model is better equipped to translate a member's goals into workable legislative language.
To close that gap, Page called for public-private partnerships that give both members and their staff firsthand experience with emerging technology. The responsibility, she argued, falls largely on industry: companies need to show up with their products, run demonstrations and answer questions openly.
Public-private partnerships of this kind would sit alongside the existing channels through which Congress learns about technology, such as committee hearings, briefings from agencies and testimony from experts. What Page is proposing is more practical and less formal: time spent actually using the products, with the people who build them on hand to explain how they work.
8. What's next: the 120th Congress convenes in January
Page concluded that educating policymakers about emerging technology has never been more important, noting that voters put these issues on the agenda during this fall's campaigns. The next milestone is the arrival of the 120th Congress in January 2027, when new members take their seats and begin building the offices that will handle AI, crypto and related policy.
She ended on a forward-looking note, saying she is eager to begin that work in January. Whether lawmakers take up the invitation to experiment with the technology before legislating on it will be one of the quieter factors shaping how the new Congress approaches AI regulation, digital assets and prediction markets in the year ahead.