Americans want better AI safety guardrails
Core finding
Support for AI safety regulation is broad and lopsided. About nine in ten U.S. adults back mandatory disclosure of safety-test results (89%) and independent review of the most powerful systems before deployment (89%), and 80% support federal authority to block a risky system.
The public also doubts the industry's own proposals. A 43% plurality say industry-drafted regulations are designed mainly to benefit the companies, while just 9% say they are mainly designed to protect the public.
Disclosure and independent review draw near-consensus support
89% of U.S. adults support requiring AI companies to publicly disclose the results of safety testing for their most powerful systems (55% strongly support plus 34% support); 11% oppose (8% oppose plus 3% strongly oppose).
Requiring independent, third-party review of the most powerful systems before deployment draws the same breadth: 89% support it (53% strongly plus 36%), while 11% are opposed.
Older adults are the most emphatic. On disclosure, 63% of adults 65 and older strongly support the requirement, compared with 47% of adults under 30.
Topline
89% of U.S. adults support mandatory safety-test disclosure, 89% support independent pre-deployment review and 80% support federal authority to block a risky AI system.
n = 1,690 · Jun 18–19, 2026 · MoE ±2.8%
Most would let the government stop a risky system
Four in five adults (80%, combining 45% strong support and 36% support) favor giving the federal government the authority to block the release of an AI system found to pose a risk. Just 6% strongly oppose it.
When the government and AI companies disagree over safety, 49% say the government should generally have the final say, about three times the 16% who would leave the call to the companies. Another 35% are not sure.
The industry's own proposals meet suspicion
Asked about the regulations AI companies have proposed for their own industry, a 43% plurality say the proposals are primarily designed to benefit the companies, 15% say they are equally motivated by public interest and self-interest, and just 9% say they are primarily designed to protect the public. Another 33% say they do not have enough information to judge.
Asked who they trust more to determine whether a model is safe, 56% of adults say they are not familiar enough with the situation to have an opinion. Among the rest, about twice as many trust the U.S. government (30%) as trust the AI company, Anthropic (14%).
Topline
43% of U.S. adults say the AI industry's proposed regulations are designed mainly to benefit the companies; 9% say they mainly protect the public.
n = 1,690 · Jun 18–19, 2026 · MoE ±2.8%
Methodology
Full methodology →| Mode | Verasight panel recruited via random address-based sampling, random person-to-person text messaging, and dynamic online targeting |
|---|---|
| Population | US adults age 18+ |
| Field dates | Jun 18–19, 2026 |
| Base (unweighted) | 1,690 |
| Margin of error | ±2.8% |
| Module | AI Regulation |
| Sponsor | Verasight |
| Weight variable | weight |
| Weighting targets | age, race/ethnicity, sex, income, education, region, metropolitan status |
Sources
- reports.verasight.io/r/june-2026-ai-survey
To what extent do you support or oppose each of the following AI regulations? - Requiring AI companies to publicly disclose the results of safety testing for their most powerful AI systems
- reports.verasight.io/r/june-2026-ai-survey
Thinking about these proposals, which of the following best reflects your view?
- reports.verasight.io/r/june-2026-ai-survey
Which of the following best reflects your general view on AI safety disputes between the government and AI companies?
- reports.verasight.io/r/june-2026-ai-survey
If you had to pick, who do you trust more to determine whether the model is safe?
- reports.verasight.io/r/june-2026-ai-survey
Do you support or oppose this proposal?
Cite this topic
What do Americans from both parties agree on? AI Regulation, fielded June 18-19, 2026, N=1,690 US adults age 18+, +/- 2.8%.