Senator Adam Schiff says the Trump administration is corrupt, and he is willing to impeach the President again to prove it. In a wide-ranging interview with Decoder, Schiff, the California Democrat, touched on AI regulation, free speech, and the Supreme Court’s recent Loper Bright decision, which he warned could complicate new rules for artificial intelligence.
The conversation covered a lot of ground, but the central thread is simple: Schiff believes the administration is acting illegally, and he thinks the country needs stronger oversight of the technology companies it regulates. He also warned that the political climate means any new agency could face immediate legal challenges. Schiff’s case against the administration rests on a simple claim: the government is breaking the law, and he wants to stop it.
Schiff’s Case Against the Administration
Schiff’s most direct charge is that the administration is operating outside the law. He pointed to taxpayer-funded presidential campaign ads as evidence of corruption, and he cited the triumphal arch in Washington as another example.
The administration claims the arch serves a national security purpose because they want to store ammunition in it. That’s the best legal argument they have.
He also described efforts to pressure Anthropic, the AI company, over its refusal to build domestic mass surveillance tools and fully autonomous weapons systems. Schiff said the administration tried to “kill Anthropic” over those positions.
Trump himself has offered his own take on AI safety. When asked about it, he pointed to his brain and called himself a stable genius.
Schiff did not simply describe the administration’s behavior. He named it as corruption, and he gave concrete examples of what that looks like in practice.
The New Agency Proposal
Schiff supports creating a dedicated agency to regulate AI. He sees the need as urgent, given the pace of technological change.
But he acknowledged the political headwinds. The Loper Bright decision, which overturned the Reagan-era Chevron deference precedent, has made it easier for courts to second-guess agencies. That means any new rules could face immediate litigation.
“None of these companies want to incur the wrath of this very vengeful president.”
The warning is clear: the administration’s corruption is not abstract. It is reflected in specific actions, from campaign ads paid for with public money to threats against a company that refused to build weapons.
The Free Speech Question
Schiff has spoken out against the administration’s approach to free speech. He worries that the current political climate could chill dissent.
The concern is not hypothetical. The administration has shown a willingness to use existing tools to control the narrative, and Schiff believes that could extend to the technology sector.
The Political Climate
The broader context matters here. Schiff is not shy about calling out the administration’s corruption.
His willingness to consider impeachment again is notable. The interview does not establish whether other politicians have distanced themselves from the idea after one round, but Schiff has not ruled out taking action if he believes the corruption is significant enough.
What Comes Next
Schiff’s proposal for a new AI agency is likely to face pushback. The courts are now more skeptical of agency discretion, and that skepticism could complicate any new regulatory framework.
The path forward is not easy. But Schiff is committed to fighting for it.
The Key Points
- Schiff says the administration is corrupt, citing taxpayer-funded campaign ads and the triumphal arch as examples.
- He supports creating a new agency to regulate AI.
- He would consider impeaching Trump again over the corruption he describes.
- He warns that new regulations could face immediate litigation under Loper Bright.
- Anthropic resisted building mass surveillance and autonomous weapons; Schiff says the administration tried to “kill Anthropic.”
- Trump responded to a question about AI safety by pointing to his brain and calling himself a stable genius.
The interview shows a senator who is not afraid to speak his mind, even when it puts him at odds with the administration. Schiff’s willingness to consider impeachment again signals how seriously he takes the corruption he describes.
The administration’s corruption is not abstract. It is reflected in specific actions, from campaign ads paid for with public money to threats against a company that refused to build weapons.
Where the paper stands
The paper backs Schiff’s warning that new AI agencies could face immediate legal challenges, and is against the kind of broad rulebooks and agency expansion that typically protect the biggest tech firms while raising the cost of entry for everyone else. The paper’s position is that regulation often works in favor of the largest players and against the small business, and that narrow rules against direct harm — such as requiring companies to disclose safety failures they hid — are better than broad rules that hand the market to the incumbents.
The warning about litigation under Loper Bright shows the risk clearly: a new agency could face immediate legal challenges from the start. The paper has long argued that broad rulebooks and expanded agencies tend to serve the interests of the biggest firms rather than the public interest, and that caution applies especially to AI, where the danger is concentration of power among a few dominant firms, not the technology itself.
The paper would prefer narrow, targeted safeguards against direct harm — disclosure requirements, safety reporting, and penalties for hidden failures — rather than a new agency with sweeping authority. Readers should watch for proposals that look like they were written to benefit the biggest companies first, and for warnings that the political climate could make any new rules vulnerable to immediate legal challenge.
Source material: “Sen. Adam Schiff on AI regulation, free speech, and impeaching Trump one more time,” The Verge.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.