Hawaii made some progress on artificial intelligence during the 2026 legislative session, but not nearly enough to keep pace with the speed and reach of the technology, according to political commentator and former state lawmaker Beth Fukumoto. In her latest assessment of the session, Fukumoto argued that lawmakers addressed a few immediate risks — especially around child safety and digital deception — but failed to build the broader rules needed to protect residents as AI becomes more deeply embedded in everyday life.
Her central point is straightforward: reacting to a handful of visible harms is no longer enough. As AI tools increasingly affect health care, insurance, online safety, pricing, education and public services, Hawaii will need a more durable framework next session instead of relying on piecemeal fixes.
One of the clearest areas of agreement this year came around protections for children. Hawaii approved a measure aimed at AI companion apps, requiring those platforms to disclose that users are interacting with a machine rather than a person and to maintain safeguards for self-harm risks and minor users. That law stood out as one of the session’s most concrete steps, especially as states across the country are moving to address the effect of AI-powered chatbots on young people.
Lawmakers also moved on several forms of digital abuse and deception. Measures targeting AI-generated deepfakes, the nonconsensual sharing of intimate imagery, and scams involving impersonation of government agencies all advanced. Other consumer-facing changes, including stronger account deletion rights on social media platforms and clearer upfront pricing in certain industries, added to the session’s technology-related record.
But Fukumoto’s broader criticism is that these actions, while meaningful, do not amount to real AI governance.
She argued that Hawaii still lacks the kinds of structural protections now being debated or adopted elsewhere in the United States. That includes guardrails against algorithmic discrimination, clearer standards for transparency, and rules requiring meaningful human review when automated systems make decisions that can seriously affect a person’s life. In practical terms, that concern reaches far beyond the tech sector. It touches whether someone can challenge an insurance denial, understand how an automated decision was made, or know when a high-stakes judgment came from a machine instead of a person.
That gap is especially important because AI is no longer a future issue in government. Public agencies across the country are already testing or deploying automated systems to detect fraud, verify eligibility, screen information and improve services. Supporters say the tools can save time and money. Critics warn that badly designed systems can create serious harm when they are trusted too quickly or used without oversight.
Fukumoto pointed to that tension in arguing that Hawaii should not approach the issue as if the only choice is between banning technology and embracing it. In her view, the state must do both: adopt useful technologies where they genuinely improve services, while also putting protections in place before automated systems gain too much influence over public and private decisions.
That theme ran through several of the examples she highlighted from the 2026 session. Lawmakers supported steps to modernize government and public systems, including mobile driver’s licenses, expanded automated traffic enforcement in high-risk areas, intelligent speed-assistance tools for repeat offenders, and broader use of telehealth and mobile health care services. Those measures suggest the Legislature is open to technology when there is a clear public benefit.
Still, the session left major unresolved questions. Proposals tied to broader AI oversight did not move forward. A bill that would have addressed surveillance pricing — the practice of using consumer data to charge different people different prices — stalled early. Measures involving children’s social media access also failed to advance, even as other states continue tightening rules around minors and online platforms. Bills to restrict cellphone use during the school day similarly went nowhere.
For Fukumoto, that pattern reveals a Legislature more comfortable addressing immediate, visible problems than preparing for what may come next. It is easier politically to ban a scam or punish an obvious abuse than to write a durable set of principles for how AI should be used across sectors. But she argues that the harder work can no longer be postponed.
The wider national context adds to the urgency. States across the country introduced a large volume of AI-related measures this year, covering everything from chatbot disclosures and children’s safety to health care oversight, labor impacts, government procurement and consumer rights. That activity has shown there is no single national template yet. But it has also made clear that states are not waiting for Washington to solve every question first.
That matters for Hawaii, where lawmakers are still deciding how aggressively to move on issues such as AI oversight, data privacy, and the long-term impact of technology infrastructure. While the state may not yet face the same level of pressure as larger mainland markets, the policy choices made now could shape how quickly it can respond when those pressures grow.
Fukumoto’s message, ultimately, is less about alarm than preparedness. She does not argue that every emerging technology should be blocked. Nor does she suggest Hawaii made no progress this year. Instead, her criticism is that the state is still operating without a clear playbook at a time when AI systems are becoming more powerful, more common and more difficult for the public to evaluate.
That is why her call for the next session carries weight beyond one issue cycle. If Hawaii wants to protect consumers, children and workers while also using new tools to improve public services, lawmakers will have to move from narrow responses to a more complete policy strategy. The 2026 session showed that there is willingness to act. The bigger test, as Fukumoto sees it, is whether the next one will show the state is finally ready to lead rather than just catch up.
