The Trahan-Obernolte discussion draft text has dropped. I'm going to publish a longer and more carefully considered piece on this in the near future, but quick takes for twitter: I think the substance of the catastrophic risk provisions (IVO-style auditing and SB 53-style transparency, both with fairly robust rulemaking authority; incident reporting; whistleblower protections) is quite good, for the most part. Not absolutely perfect, but better than any other federal cat-risk bill that's been introduced so far. Unfortunately, I also think that the preemption (all state laws regulating development) is far too broad, and that this makes the bill as drafted a bad deal overall. Currently, you're preempting (for example) a broad range of state child safety laws, in exchange for a federal framework that (from what I've seen so far; I have not yet read all 270 pages) doesn't include substantial federal child safety protections. And it's not just child safety, it's every possible current or future state law that regulates development. If you narrowed the preemption to avoid that kind of asymmetry between the policies you're implementing federally and the policies you're eliminating at the state level, I think I would strongly support a bill like this. It doesn't have to be completely 1:1, necessarily; something like @deanwball's proposal, which preempted five specific categories of state law in exchange for federal transparency, might be good enough (depending on the details). Tl;dr. -- the draft is quite good on substance, but quite bad on preemption, and therefore (IMO) a bad deal overall. My hope is that it's a step in the right direction, and that as discussion continues the preemption section can evolve into something that makes more sense in terms of both politics and policy.