Attorney General Todd Blanche says the Justice Department will pursue criminal conduct involving artificial intelligence while rejecting efforts to use federal prosecution as a substitute for AI regulation. Speaking at the White House, Blanche emphasized that existing criminal statutes remain fully applicable when AI is used to facilitate illegal activity, but argued that DOJ prosecutors are not technology regulators. His position establishes a restrained enforcement philosophy: prosecute identifiable violations of law rather than expand executive authority through regulatory interpretation. The distinction arrives amid growing pressure in Washington for additional AI safeguards, even as administration officials warn that overly aggressive regulation could slow American innovation and weaken the United States in its technological competition with China.
Key Takeaways
- Blanche said the Justice Department will investigate and prosecute criminal violations involving AI under existing federal law, while maintaining that DOJ should not become an AI regulatory agency.
- The approach separates criminal enforcement from policymaking: Congress remains responsible for determining whether additional AI-specific laws are necessary rather than prosecutors effectively creating new rules through enforcement actions.
- DOJ officials have nevertheless made clear that existing laws—including antitrust statutes—continue to apply when algorithms, AI systems, or large language models are allegedly used to facilitate conduct such as price fixing, collusion, fraud, or other crimes.
In-Depth
Attorney General Todd Blanche has drawn a clear line for federal involvement in artificial intelligence: prosecute crimes committed with or through AI, but do not turn the Justice Department into a technology regulator. Speaking at the White House, Blanche said existing criminal laws give prosecutors authority to investigate unlawful conduct connected to AI, while stressing that DOJ’s role is enforcement rather than rulemaking.
That distinction matters as Washington faces pressure to impose new controls on rapidly advancing AI systems. Blanche’s position favors applying established law to new technology rather than creating a backdoor for regulation. The approach also reflects an administration view that AI offers substantial economic and social benefits and that excessive federal intervention could hinder American innovation.
The policy does not amount to a free pass for technology companies. Federal antitrust officials have made clear that algorithms, automated pricing systems, and large language models cannot lawfully become mechanisms for collusion. Existing statutes governing fraud, conspiracy, antitrust violations, cybercrime, and other offenses remain available when AI becomes a tool for illegal conduct.
The larger debate shifts toward Congress, where lawmakers are considering whether AI-specific safeguards are necessary. Blanche’s framework separates those responsibilities: legislators decide whether new laws are needed, regulators administer authorities granted by law, and prosecutors bring cases when existing statutes are violated. For conservatives wary of administrative overreach, that division offers a familiar constitutional principle: technological change does not automatically justify expanding executive power. It places responsibility on elected lawmakers to establish new national rules when necessary.
Sources
- https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/acting-deputy-assistant-attorney-general-criminal-enforcement-daniel-gladd-delivers
- https://news.bloomberglaw.com/delaware-brief/ag-blanche-rejects-ai-regulation-by-prosecution-the-brief
- https://rollcall.com/2026/09/15/blanche-vows-to-continue-midterm-efforts-despite-court-blocking-mail-ballots-rule/
- https://www.reuters.com/world/us/attorney-general-blanche-says-doj-would-probe-ai-related-violations-2026-09-15/