Illinois Passes Landmark AI Safety Law as Federal Regulation Stalls

Illinois lawmakers passed SB 315 on Wednesday, making the state the first in the nation to mandate independent, third-party safety testing of frontier AI models — a move that comes just days after President Donald Trump canceled a federal plan to vet such systems.

The law, which Governor J.B. Pritzker has confirmed he intends to sign, would require the largest AI companies to submit public safety plans and annual reports summarizing the results of third-party audits. Firms would also be required to report critical safety incidents to the state within 72 hours — or within 24 hours if the situation poses "an imminent risk of death or serious physical harm."

Employees at covered companies would gain a protected channel to report emerging safety risks, with whistleblower protections provided under Illinois state law.

On X, Pritzker declared 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," he said.

Once signed, the law's provisions take effect January 1, 2027. While the legislation includes no private right of action, violations would expose companies to civil penalties.

Notably, two of the firms whose models would fall under the law's requirements — OpenAI and Anthropic — supported the bill. OpenAI's chief of global affairs, Chris Lehane, told Wired that the company is actively working to pass similar measures in other states, a strategy that analysts say may reflect a preference for uniform national standards over a fragmented patchwork of state-level rules.

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 conducting voluntarily. He described the law as significant for establishing "a baseline that every leading AI developer is expected to meet."

Not all stakeholders are supportive. Adam Kovacevich, CEO of Chamber of Progress — a trade group that counts Google and Apple among its members — opposed the bill. 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."

Questions about auditor readiness have also surfaced among industry insiders. Illinois would likely rely on major accounting firms — Deloitte, EY, KPMG, and PwC — to conduct the required audits, according to Scott Wisor, a policy director at the nonprofit Secure AI Project, which supported the bill. Without the law, Wisor told Wired, "we're in a situation where the AI companies grade their own homework."

The bill's sponsors were candid about preferring federal action. Democratic Rep. Daniel Didech, who sponsored the legislation in the Illinois House, told NBC News the bill was "designed to put up some guardrails" against catastrophic risks, but acknowledged that state intervention was not his first choice.

"The states shouldn't be doing this," Didech said. "The best way to regulate these types of catastrophic risks would be a federal approach." He added, however, 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."

Democratic Illinois Sen. Mary Edly-Allen, a co-sponsor, pushed back on concerns that the law would inhibit development, describing it as an effort to establish "minimal guardrails" so AI can be a "powerful tool for good." "Senate Bill 315 is not about stopping innovation but balancing the great promise of AI with its potential harms," she said.

Didech suggested the Illinois framework could serve as a template, telling Wired the state could become a "testing ground" for AI governance — and that "laws like this create a world where it's more likely for the federal government to pass something."

With Congress yet to pass any federal AI legislation and the Trump administration's own safety-testing initiative now shelved, the trajectory of AI oversight in the United States increasingly runs through state capitals, underscoring the pressure on federal lawmakers to act before the regulatory landscape becomes further fragmented.