WASHINGTON — Sens. Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, two Senate Republicans who have been sharply critical of the technology industry’s influence, said Tuesday that artificial intelligence companies should not receive an antitrust exemption to coordinate on safety measures. The comments came during a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing with FBI Director Kash Patel, as lawmakers debated how to respond to warnings from AI executives and researchers that rapidly advancing systems could create serious risks if safeguards do not keep pace. “To watch AI CEOs saying, ‘We’re about to destroy the world so give us control of the government so we can lock in our monopoly status and prevent any innovators from challenging us,’ is just lunacy,” Cruz, the Texas Republican who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee, said. “And, by the way, if you’re about to destroy the world, how about, don’t. How about, stop.” Hawley, a Missouri Republican, rejected the idea in similarly direct terms. “There is no world in which I will consent to giving the most powerful companies in the history of the world — a small group of three or four of them — antitrust exemptions from our laws so that they can, what, collude together?” he said. Some AI industry leaders and safety advocates have argued that companies may need to cooperate on safeguards, even when they compete commercially. A limited antitrust exemption could allow firms to share information or enter agreements intended to reduce risks from advanced systems. Cruz and Hawley said that approach would give dominant companies a way to strengthen their market positions under the banner of safety. Their comments add to a growing divide among Republicans, who are balancing warnings from technology executives against pressure from Trump to avoid regulations that could slow U.S. development relative to China. Trump has repeatedly dismissed concerns about catastrophic AI risks, including in social media posts Monday in which he called them a “HOAX.” House Speaker Mike Johnson also downplayed predictions of an AI-driven catastrophe Tuesday, while saying he hoped to meet with technology executives and Trump later in the week. Other lawmakers have called for mandatory government oversight rather than voluntary industry agreements. Rep. Josh Gottheimer, a New Jersey Democrat and co-chair of the House AI Commission, said frontier AI models should undergo a government review before being released publicly. “With our cybersecurity, biosecurity, critical infrastructure, and national security on the line, every AI developer should have to submit their frontier models to the U.S. government for a short-clocked review,” Gottheimer said. A bipartisan bill sponsored by Reps. Jay Obernolte, a California Republican, and Lori Trahan, a Massachusetts Democrat, would allow independent organizations to evaluate whether AI models meet safety standards. OpenAI backed that provision Tuesday, but Trahan said such evaluations should be required rather than left to companies’ discretion. “It’s not just up to industry to decide,” Trahan said. “There are a whole lot of stakeholders who deserve a voice at the table.” Patel did not take a position on an antitrust exemption during Tuesday’s hearing. He said the FBI is testing AI systems under scenarios designed to determine whether they comply with federal law and argued that criminal liability should focus on people who intentionally create models for illegal purposes. “We can’t be punishing people if they created something lawfully” and another person later used the technology for criminal acts, Patel said. Patel also said the FBI’s existing cyber division can handle AI-related threats, though the agency would need additional resources. He said federal funding would help the bureau acquire and test AI systems for law-enforcement purposes. The debate is unfolding as Congress faces increasing pressure to establish rules for powerful AI systems. The House is not expected to take up broad AI legislation before the November midterm elections, while Senate lawmakers continue discussing narrower proposals, including requirements for model “kill switches” and independent safety assessments.