September 16, 2026, (Inside AI) — U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche said on Tuesday that the Department of Justice will investigate anyone linked to artificial intelligence if they break existing criminal laws. Speaking to reporters at the White House, Blanche framed the issue as a matter of enforcement, not regulation.
"As far as AI is concerned, there's a lot of criminal laws," Blanche said. "So if anybody associated with AI violates criminal law, we'll investigate that."
The remarks arrive as the Trump administration pushes to accelerate American AI development while confronting risks from fraud, data misuse, and automated cyberattacks. Blanche added that he did not believe the Justice Department's role was to regulate AI. That position places the DOJ in a support role for agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which already police deceptive practices and financial harms.
Enforcement Without New Rules
Blanche's approach echoes how the DOJ handled cryptocurrency and cybercrime. Prosecutors used wire fraud, identity theft, and money laundering statutes against actors in emerging sectors without waiting for Congress to pass tailored laws. The same logic applies to AI. A company that uses a model to collude on prices could face antitrust charges under the Sherman Act. A developer who trains a system on stolen personal data could face charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act or identity theft statutes.
Read: FTC Chair Ferguson Warns Against AI Antitrust Exemptions
Legal experts note that existing laws were not written with autonomous systems in mind. Courts have yet to settle who bears liability when an AI agent commits a crime without direct human instruction. The DOJ has not issued public guidance on that question. Inside AI could not independently verify whether the department has opened any AI-related investigations.
The announcement follows a broader federal push on AI oversight. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy released a framework earlier this year urging agencies to use existing authorities rather than propose new rules. The FTC has already brought several enforcement actions against companies accused of making false claims about AI capabilities. The Securities and Exchange Commission has warned public companies about overstating AI investments to investors.
Blanche's comments also come amid a heated debate over state-level AI laws. California and Colorado have passed measures requiring impact assessments for high-risk AI systems. Industry groups have challenged some of those rules in court, arguing they conflict with federal authority. The DOJ has not signaled whether it would intervene in those cases.
Civil liberties organizations have raised concerns about DOJ involvement. They point to past surveillance abuses and argue that criminal enforcement could chill legitimate research. "Prosecutors should not become the de facto regulators of AI," said one advocacy group spokesperson who requested anonymity to discuss internal strategy. "That approach lacks transparency and due process."
Blanche's statement did not specify which criminal statutes he considers most relevant. He also did not say whether the DOJ would create a dedicated AI task force. A department spokesperson declined to elaborate beyond the attorney general's remarks.
The timing matters for several pending cases. Federal prosecutors in New York and California are reportedly examining AI-generated fraud schemes that targeted elderly victims. Separately, the Department of Homeland Security has warned that AI-powered phishing campaigns are growing more sophisticated. Blanche's remarks could signal that the DOJ will prioritize those cases over novel legal theories.
Read: Trump Faces Bipartisan Backlash in Congress Over AI Regulation Push
For now, the practical effect of Blanche's comments may be limited. The DOJ already has broad authority to investigate crimes committed with or through AI. What remains unclear is whether the department will pursue cases that test the boundaries of existing law. That question will likely define the next phase of AI enforcement in the United States.
