It turns out that when an AI-friendly super PAC with $100 million in backing from Silicon Valley bigwigs identifies you as its first target, it ends up generating a lot of attention.

“I want to thank [the PAC] for their partnership in raising up the issue of how we regulate an incredibly powerful technology so that the future is one that benefits all of us,” says Alex Bores, a New York Assembly member and Democratic congressional candidate, in an interview with WIRED. “I couldn't imagine a better partner this week.”

Earlier this year, Bores and New York state senator Andrew Gounardes coauthored the RAISE Act, a bill that would empower New York’s attorney general to bring civil penalties of up to $30 million against AI developers like OpenAI and Google if they fail to publish safety reports around their technology.

The RAISE Act passed through New York’s legislature in June, and is due to be signed or vetoed by governor Kathy Hochul before the end of the year. It’s one of a handful of state AI safety bills across the country that attempt to regulate AI developers—even as the Trump administration readies an executive order aimed at thwarting state-level AI laws.

This effort is what landed Bores squarely in the crosshairs of Leading the Future. In addition to backing from venture capital powerhouse Andreessen Horowitz, the recently formed PAC is also funded by OpenAI cofounder Greg Brockman and Palantir cofounder Joe Lonsdale.

Andreessen Horowitz declined WIRED’s request for comment. Brockman and Lonsdale did not respond to WIRED’s request for comment.

Leading the Future plans to spend millions of dollars to kill Bores’ bid for Congress. “Assemblyman Bores has advanced exactly the type of ideological and politically motivated legislation that would handcuff not only New York’s, but the entire country’s, ability to lead on AI jobs and innovation,” said the PAC’s leaders, Zac Moffatt and Josh Vlasto, in a statement to WIRED. They added that the PAC will “aggressively oppose policymakers and candidates in states across the country” that jeopardize Americans’ “ability to benefit from AI.” But they declined to share their next targets.

Bores believes the AI industry is threatened by his technical chops. The New York lawmaker holds a masters degree in computer science from Georgia Tech. He also worked as an engineer at Palantir for four years before quitting in 2019 over a contract the company renewed with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

”The part that scares Trump's megadonors the most is that I actually understand AI,” he claims.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Maxwell Zeff: WIRED reported yesterday on an executive order Trump is considering to challenge states that have passed AI laws. There’s also a renewed effort among House Republicans to ban state AI laws. What do you make of these efforts?

Alex Bores: I agree that the best solution is a federal one, but it has to be an actual solution. For them to not put forward a bill to make AI development safe, protect our kids from chatbots, or use the innovation of the industry to promote environmental causes—but instead block states from taking action—that just doesn't make any sense to me.

The question should be, is Congress solving the problem? And if they're not, states have a natural role as the laboratories of democracy.

The executive order draft that WIRED obtained indicates that Trump may soon create a group within the DOJ to litigate with states over AI laws.

I've never heard someone say we need to promote more innovation with more lawsuits.

A lot of people now know you for your views on AI safety. It’s becoming a defining feature of your candidacy. Is this issue worth staking your political career on?

I'll say this. On Sunday, I had my annual town hall with constituents. There were a few questions about AI, but there were also questions on infrastructure, health care, and the broader economy. So I expect to be talking about all of those in the campaign, the same way I've been legislating on all of those in the Assembly.

So the RAISE Act is sitting on [New York governor] Kathy Hochul’s desk. The bill has some pretty serious penalties for AI companies that don’t follow New York’s rules on safety. Why is it important to have these kinds of fines?

The fundamental logic of the RAISE Act was that companies already made a bunch of voluntary commitments to safety. However, there’s also economic pressures that could cause them to change their mind.

The bill largely just enforces what they’ve already committed to, and the penalties make sure there’s an economic incentive to not skimp on safety. Otherwise, it’s ignored.

You might be the first political target of this AI super PAC book, but you likely won't be the last.

Well given that they raised $100 million, I would hope they're not planning to spend all of it on me.

Right, but you are the first. What kind of example do you want to set for other lawmakers that might be targeted by Leading the Future, and what message do you want to send to the companies behind this?

The people funding this have a huge amount of money, but represent a small minority’s opinion on what needs to be done. They don't represent Silicon Valley or AI innovation at large. They are hoping a bunch of money can scare people into selling out their constituents. And the best thing you can do is show you will not be cowered by that.

I could see some voters asking, “What is this guy doing fighting with companies on the other side of the country, rather than focusing here in New York?” How does AI safety fit into your message to New Yorkers?

The broad message is that AI is one of the fastest-moving issues of our time, and one that will affect everything that we do. It will affect every piece of the economy. It'll affect our democracy. It'll affect education. And we have to get it right.

My commitment to all New Yorkers is that I will be in Congress fighting for all of your interests. And that includes, even if I'm the lone voice, being the person that is making sure that technology works for us, and not that we work for technology.