Archewell Philanthropies urges Congress to advance AI deepfake legislation, citing bills “sitting, waiting”

Archewell Philanthropies, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s charitable arm, is urging members of Congress to move forward on legislation addressing AI deepfakes, arguing that multiple bills remain stalled in the legislative process. In a statement posted on the couple’s website, the organization said lawmakers should act because, in its view, the existing framework is not doing enough to protect children from the harms associated with synthetic or altered media.

The statement, published under the title “Can we all…,” also criticized what it described as Big Tech retaliation against “basic safety measures” intended to keep children safe. Archewell did not identify a specific federal bill in the description of the announcement, but it called on lawmakers to prioritize the remaining legislative work rather than letting proposals languish.

Archewell’s appeal comes amid growing federal attention to deepfakes and the use of artificial intelligence to generate realistic images, audio, and video content. The organization’s central contention was that the legislative proposals are already on the table, yet Congress has not completed the process required for those measures to become law.

In the statement, Archewell said “More bills are sitting, waiting,” framing its message as a call for timeline commitments and legislative scheduling. It argued that the consequences of inaction fall most heavily on minors, whose online exposure can be affected by synthetic media used in misinformation campaigns, harassment, or other forms of exploitation.

Congress’s role in this area typically involves determining the scope of any new rules, including what protections apply to content involving children, how enforcement would work, and whether requirements would target generators, platforms, or distributors. While Archewell’s announcement emphasized safety measures and timelines, it did not provide details in the available reporting about specific compliance mechanisms or enforcement authorities.

The statement’s focus on both legislative delay and industry resistance also points to the policy process behind AI regulation, where disputes can arise over definitions, liability standards, and the balance between safety requirements and other legal concerns. Archewell’s characterization of industry actions, as described in the report, was attributed to the organization rather than to a specific company, and lawmakers would need to address any disputed policy approach through normal legislative deliberations.

The next step, based on Archewell’s call, is that Congress would have to put any remaining deepfake-related proposals on the agenda for committee consideration and floor action. If lawmakers choose to advance legislation, the measure would then be subject to the standard processes of amendment, negotiations across chambers, and, ultimately, the president’s signature or veto.

Until any bill becomes law, the practical effect of Archewell’s request is limited to shaping public and stakeholder pressure for action. However, the organization’s stated emphasis on protecting children suggests the group expects Congress to prioritize safeguards related to synthetic media in any final framework. The matter remains in the hands of lawmakers and the legislative calendar.