On a brisk Monday in late September 2025, Senator Ted Cruz found himself at the center of several national debates, from the future of artificial intelligence regulation to the boundaries of free speech and the pitfalls of identity politics. The Texas Republican, known for his fiery rhetoric and willingness to wade into contentious issues, made headlines on multiple fronts—each with its own set of supporters and skeptics.
First, Cruz released a 40-page report as chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, alleging that the Biden administration’s leading cybersecurity agency had engaged in censorship of online speech. According to the TMZ and Fierce Healthcare reports, the document accuses the agency of overstepping its mandate and calls for Congress to take action to prevent such censorship "regardless of who occupies the White House." Cruz’s message was clear: the threat to free speech, in his view, transcends party lines and should be a bipartisan concern.
But Cruz wasn’t only focused on the digital battlefield. He also weighed in on the role of government in the world of late-night comedy, specifically targeting Jimmy Kimmel’s much-publicized return to television. In an interview with TMZ, Cruz didn’t hold back, saying, "Jimmy used to be hilarious, but somewhere along the way, he traded punchlines for political rants ... and, in Ted’s view, that’s when the laughs (and ratings) nosedived." Still, Cruz was adamant that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should stay out of the fray, cautioning that "the government threatening comedians is a slippery slope that could bite everyone in the bum." Instead, he expressed hope that Kimmel would return to his roots, roasting both sides of the political aisle, rather than focusing his ire on one camp.
Meanwhile, Cruz’s fingerprints were all over the ongoing debate about how best to regulate artificial intelligence. On September 10, he introduced the Strengthening AI Normalization and Diffusion by Oversight and eXperimentation (SANDBOX) Act, a legislative proposal designed to give AI developers more leeway to innovate. The act would allow companies to apply for waivers from federal AI regulations for up to two years, with the possibility of renewal for up to a decade. Applicants would be required to publicly disclose the experimental nature of their products, explain how benefits outweigh risks, and report annually to Congress on which rules were most often waived and how consumers engaged with the technology.
In his remarks introducing the legislation, Cruz said, "[The SANDBOX Act] embraces our nation’s entrepreneurial spirit and gives AI developers the room to create while still mitigating any health or consumer risks. The AI framework and SANDBOX Act ensure AI is defined by American values of defending human dignity, protecting free speech and encouraging innovation." The SANDBOX Act, he explained, is just one piece of a broader AI framework he is developing.
Yet, as The Hill and Fierce Healthcare reported, the proposal has drawn mixed reviews from the health technology community. Brian Anderson, CEO of the Coalition for Health AI, praised the bill, writing, "This bill marks a major step forward in addressing the deep dysfunctions within our healthcare system. It will create 'regulatory sandboxes' for AI developers to test and launch new technologies under clear conditions, with accountability for safety and risk. This will be especially valuable for startups, giving them a clearer path to bring innovations to the people who need them most."
Others, however, are more skeptical. Randi Siegel, a partner at Manatt Health, pointed out that the SANDBOX Act does not address the patchwork of state AI laws that have proliferated in the absence of a comprehensive federal framework. "I’m not sure it's super beneficial to a lot of innovators, because it's not preempting state law … It's only an alternative to complying with federal regulations," Siegel said during a recent webinar. "If you are playing in the sort of FDA-regulated space, or the gray area where you're not really sure if you're FDA-regulated or not, this provides a pathway for you to potentially innovate in a less costly way, without having to go through the approval process. But it's definitely not solving the patchwork issue … I'm not sure how impactful it's going to be from a macro innovation perspective."
Troy Bannister, founder and CEO of OnboardAI, echoed these concerns, noting that "90% plus of startups are falling in this kind of clinical decision support category, where they're saying, ‘We are not making clinical decisions. We are just recommending things.’ And so we're kind of exempt from this kind of 510K FDA zone, and that's where everybody's starting right now." Bannister argued that this exemption reduces the utility of the AI sandboxes at the federal level.
Mark Sendak, CEO of Vega Health, and Demetri Giannakopoulis, chief AI officer at RadAI, both emphasized the importance of maintaining trust and safety, even when federal regulations are waived. "I think it's really hard to embrace the premise that carve-outs of regulations somehow give you an opportunity to build trust with innovation," Sendak said, drawing on his experience deploying COVID-19 tests in schools. Giannakopoulis added, "That does put a lot of the requirements on local sites, frankly, or ideally, they'll probably partner with Vega, maybe Onboard, one of these solutions to make sure that they're not putting themselves in a position where they've taken on undue risk or undue liability by leveraging these tools."
The SANDBOX Act comes on the heels of the Trump administration’s AI Action Plan, introduced in July 2025, which aimed to boost American competitiveness in AI by creating regulatory sandboxes for experimentation. A separate effort—a proposed 10-year moratorium on new state AI laws—was withdrawn after bipartisan backlash and concerns that the federal government needed to fill the regulatory vacuum to protect children and guard against deepfakes and other AI-related risks.
Amid these policy debates, Cruz also found time to wade into the latest political controversy surrounding former Vice President Kamala Harris’s new book, 107 Days. In the memoir, Harris revealed that she chose Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate over Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, citing concerns about how voters might respond to a ticket featuring both a Black woman and a gay man. Harris wrote, "We were already asking a lot of America: to accept a woman, a Black woman, a Black woman married to a Jewish man. Part of me wanted to say, Screw it, let’s just do it. But knowing what was at stake, it was too big of a risk."
Cruz pounced on the revelation during his podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz, declaring, "Democrats are at their core racist. They are at their core deeply bigoted." He continued, "She says Pete would be an ideal partner. That’s who she wanted to pick, and the singular reason she did not is he is gay. If he were straight, she doesn’t explicitly say it, but she pretty clearly suggests he would have been her pick. She’s quite open about saying, Nope, for her, being gay was disqualifying."
Buttigieg responded by stressing that trust with voters is earned through action, not identity, saying, "My experience in politics has been that the way that you earn trust with voters is based mostly on what they think you’re going to do for their lives, not on categories." Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, himself a gay man, also criticized Harris’s selection criteria and Buttigieg’s performance as Transportation Secretary, stating, "First [it] shows her emphasis on identity politics and the American people moved on. Two, it shows how low regard she holds the American people. She was just a terrible candidate." Bessent further dismissed Buttigieg as an option, referencing ongoing issues at the Department of Transportation.
In a political climate marked by polarization and rapid technological change, Cruz’s multi-pronged campaign—against censorship, for AI innovation, and against what he sees as the excesses of identity politics—has placed him at the heart of several of the nation’s defining debates. Whether his proposals and criticisms gain traction remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: Ted Cruz is not shying away from the spotlight or the fight.
