Publications: Daniel Castro

The UK Online Safety Act aims to protect children online but its vague rules and strict enforcement have led to over-censorship, threatening legitimate communities, and Parliament should clarify content definitions, allow remediation periods, and require judicial review to fix these issues.

In the short term, Congress should move quickly to reauthorize CISA 2015 and fund the agency’s operations, even if the overall government funding fight continues. Then, to keep CISA fully operational in the future, Congress also should create a dedicated funding stream so the agency doesn’t have to rely so heavily on appropriations.

California’s proposed SB 7 would heavily restrict employers’ use of AI in workplace decisions through onerous notice, transparency, and appeal requirements, creating redundant regulations that discourage beneficial AI adoption and ultimately harm both workers and businesses.

Lawmakers in Montana, New Hampshire, and Idaho are advancing “right to compute” laws to protect individuals and businesses from limits on their ability to use computational tools and AI systems.

Daniel Castro sat down with Quinn Taber to explore how the United States is moving away from a free market toward one where the government actively directs investment in critical industries.

Rather than following the UK’s lead on children’s online safety, U.S. policymakers should learn from their mistakes and chart a better path that skillfully preserves user privacy, limits collateral damage, and removes the incentives for online services to over-remove lawful content.

The Trump administration doubled down on its push for the federal government to take financial stakes or other commercial interests in major U.S. companies—a policy that would weaken American competitiveness, invite political manipulation, and undermine the very goals of U.S. industrial strategy.

The Trump administration should maintain export controls where they clearly advance national security. But it should also ensure that U.S. companies can compete globally, reinvest in innovation, and remain central to the technologies that will shape the future.

The Senate's decision to remove the 10-year AI moratorium is a major setback for U.S. leadership in AI. The vote isn’t surprising given the criticism of the moratorium, but those critiques are misguided, and here's why.

Fragmented and conflicting state AI regulations threaten to slow federal IT modernization, and a proposed 10-year moratorium aims to create a unified national framework to support innovation and maintain U.S. leadership in AI.