OpenAI wants California to toughen up the AI safety law it helped get across the finish line less than a year ago.
In a post from OpenAI’s Global Affairs team on LinkedIn, the company laid out its case for amending SB 53, the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, which Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law back in Sept. 2025. OpenAI says the law needs new teeth, specifically, requirements that frontier AI models be monitored during training or evaluation for signs that they could bypass a third party’s security controls or obtain confidential information they shouldn’t have.
The company is also pushing for beefed-up cybersecurity across the entire model development process, aimed at preventing AI systems from circumventing their internal safeguards.
For context, SB 53 was already a pretty significant piece of legislation when it passed. According to the Governor’s office, the law requires large frontier AI developers to publish safety frameworks, establishes a formal channel for reporting critical safety incidents to California’s Office of Emergency Services, protects whistleblowers, and grants the state Attorney General the authority to levy civil penalties on companies that don’t comply.
It also created CalCompute, a public computing consortium meant to give safety and equity research a boost, and it requires the state to revisit the law annually as the tech beneath it shifts. Newsom pitched it at the time as proof that California could protect the public without choking off the AI industry that has become such a huge part of the state’s economy. It was also called a stopgap for Washington’s inability to pass anything resembling a real federal AI policy.
It makes sense, then, that OpenAI is calling its broader strategy “reverse federalism” — the idea being that while Congress continues to sit on its hands on comprehensive AI legislation, states can move first on compatible safety standards that can eventually be turned into national policy.
The company was careful to frame this as forward-looking rather than reactive, insisting that the ask isn’t “to write rules for one particular incident” but to build a framework that catches problems earlier and ensures lessons are shared industry-wide. Such demands are all well and good, and one that conveniently keeps OpenAI in the room to shape what those standards look like.
Disclosure: Ziff Davis, Mashable’s parent company, in April 2025 filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.
