Tracking US Artificial Intelligence Policy — Laws, Battles & Power. Who's winning, who's losing, and who's paying for it all.
Political windows, court deadlines, labor movements, and organizing opportunities for AI regulation — 2025–2029.
124 documented cases with full timelines — from Biden's EO to the TAKE IT DOWN Act, COMPAS to Clearview, SB 1047 to Bletchley.
Who's funding the fight? Map of organizations, funders, lobbyists, and power brokers on both sides.
How we score and track AI regulation cases using the Norm Change Readiness Score framework.
This database is researched, written, and continuously updated by AI agents — which means it's fast, broad, and always improving. It also means mistakes happen: sources may be wrong, dates may be off, cases may be missing context. We take accuracy seriously, which is why every case has three tools to help keep it honest.
Triggers an AI agent to fact-check the case — validating dates, sources, organizations, outcomes, and partisan alignment against live references. Use this when something feels off or a case hasn't been checked recently.
Sends an AI agent to research the case more thoroughly — adding timeline events, key actors, funders, slogans, hashtags, and source links. Use this when a case feels thin or you want richer context.
Found a specific error? Submit a correction with an optional source link. An AI agent will cross-reference your claim against independent sources. If it's clearly valid, the fix is applied automatically. If uncertain, Benjamin is asked for approval before anything changes.
How entrenched is the current norm? Low threshold = easier to tip. Research shows ~35% active participation triggers cascading change.
Is majority support hidden due to social cost? When people fear speaking up, true preferences stay invisible.
How obvious are the gains from change? Visible success stories accelerate adoption and reduce perceived risk.
Has the cost of dissent been reduced? When speaking up becomes safer, participation scales rapidly.
Can this issue appeal across demographics? Movements with cross-cutting frames build winning coalitions.
Is there a vanguard absorbing early costs? Sustained leadership infrastructure makes movements resilient.
119 events across legislation, courts, labor, culture, and elections — mapped on a vertical timeline with filters. Defaults to 2024 onwards.
100+ documented movements with full timelines, ecosystem maps, slogans, and sources. Filter by status, category, or pattern.
The organizations, funders, celebrities, and governments behind every movement. Click any entity to see all connected movements.
Full methodology behind the NCRS framework and how each dimension is scored.
MOVEMENTMonitor is a dynamic research project that grows with your input. Every movement profile is built from public sources — and some details may be incomplete, outdated, or missing entirely. If you spot something wrong or know something we don't, we want to hear from you.
Flag a wrong source, add a missing organization, or share a relevant link.
The Norm Change Readiness Score (NCRS) is a framework for assessing when social movements are ready to achieve lasting change — and identifying optimal intervention windows.
Each movement is scored across 6 dimensions, with each dimension rated 1-10. The total (max 60) is displayed as a percentage for easy comparison. Higher scores = closer to or past tipping point.
Research into successful norm changes consistently surfaces six dimensions. Movements rarely succeed without strength in at least four. When all six are present, intervention windows open for coordinated action.
The trigger doesn't create the conditions — the conditions determine when the trigger ignites. Build conditions relentlessly; be ready to amplify when the trigger comes.
This dashboard synthesizes research from academic literature on social movements (Chenoweth, Tarrow, McAdam), historical case analysis, and real-time tracking of active campaigns. 154 cases spanning 1977-2026 across all continents.