Sen. John Curtis on why he likes the Senate better and his strategy to get things done

SALT LAKE CITY — Utah Sen. John Curtis is happy he made the decision to leave his seat in the U.S. House of Representatives to run for the U.S. Senate.

Curtis said he prefers his new position in the Senate and that the transition made for a "dramatic" difference.

"The culture of the two, the House and the Senate, is so radically different," he said.

In the House, lawmakers are competing with over 400 members to be the loudest voice in the hopes that their legislation gets attention, he said.

"There's a lot of people who can get attention by being outrageous, and so the House tends to foster a little bit more of that than the Senate," Curtis said.

Utah's freshman senator, a Republican, spoke about his transition to Congress' upper chamber at the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics, as part of the Sutherland Institute's 2025 Congressional Series.

The different term lengths before having to run for reelection — two years in the House, six years in the Senate — allows time for more thorough work to be done, Curtis said.

"The six-year terms in the Senate really change the psychology of the members in a really healthy way," he said. "This idea of not constantly running, being able to make a decision, quite frankly, to build ... is a healthy thing for the country. It gives you a little bit more freedom to work across the aisle and do things."

Curtis's reputation in both the House and Senate is as a lawmaker who has succeeded in building relationships across the political aisle.

His advice? Don't be a bad person.

"Treat them with a degree of respect, even if you disagree with them. And then you have a basis for now going to talk to them and see if you can convince them to support something that's important to you," Curtis said, noting that it's virtually impossible not to have anything in common with someone you may disagree with.

The problem, he said, is that getting along isn't good television because it's boring. So even though Curtis would argue that the majority of his colleagues on Capitol Hill like each other and go to work wanting to make the country a better place, the entertainment algorithm doesn't show it.

"We need to figure out how to make getting along sexy," he joked.

Curtis highlighted a couple of areas where his relationship-building and across-the-aisle conversations have helped him work on legislation.

Fighting the algorithm

Last week, Curtis and Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, a Democrat, co-sponsored a bill that would hold tech companies responsible for the effects their algorithms have on users.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 was enacted to protect platforms from liability for what users post. After nearly 30 years, Curtis contends that the law must change because platforms are harvesting posts and amplifying them to attract users and keep them on the site longer.

The "Algorithm Accountability Act" would hold these companies responsible. "If you use an algorithm to disseminate information, you bear the liability for the impact of that information," Curtis said on Monday.

"What began as a commonsense protection for a fledgling industry has grown into a blanket immunity shield for some of the most powerful companies on the planet — companies that intentionally design algorithms that exploit user behavior, amplify dangerous content, and keep people online at any cost. Our bill will hold them accountable," Curtis explained in a press release about the bill.

When asked if he was worried about the bill passing or if too many politicians might be aligned with "Big Tech" to let it pass, he said he remains hopeful.

"There's no question Big Tech has amazing influence on the Hill," Curtis said.

"I am very well aware that I am poking the bear, and the bear is probably going to growl." But, he said, "I'm still willing to do this, so I'm hoping my colleagues will respond."

How tech and climate intertwine

As tech evolves, so should our energy, Curtis said, especially with artificial intelligence rapidly transforming the energy landscape because of its need for massive electricity loads.

He said that action is necessary to accelerate AI development — adding that Americans need to decide whether it will happen in the United States or elsewhere.

"If we don't accommodate its growth, it will happen overseas," he said. "So we've got to radically rethink our energy sources, and that includes lots and lots and lots of nuclear. It includes geothermal; it includes all sources of electricity. As a matter of fact, every electron is going to be needed for this."

Curtis was recognized as one of TIME's most influential Climate Leaders of 2025, which is quite an unusual achievement for a Republican lawmaker. Curtis has long tried to balance advocating for an all-of-the-above approach to energy sources, while arguing it's possible to do that and still be respectful of the environment.

"It does show you that there is a path forward here for Republicans," he said.

Years ago, he was considered a "rare" Republican for even uttering the word "climate."

Congress has managed to narrow that gap somewhat, he said, but partisans still struggle to cross certain divides.

"Republicans have been willing to talk about affordability and reliability, but not clean, and that's been a mistake because the market is demanding clean," he said. "Democrats, as a stereotype, have talked about clean and skipped over affordable and reliable, and that's been a mistake. We've seen what happens in Europe when you only focus on clean, and now their utility bills are skyrocketing and people are pushing back."

"The reality is that this is market-driven more than government-driven. Price matters, reliability matters, and cleanliness matters, and the market is driving all three of those things."

Curtis praised Utah for Operation Gigawatt, an initiative of Gov. Spencer Cox, which aims to add more power sources to the state to keep up with energy demand.

But, as states struggle to overcome regulatory hurdles to add more energy sources, it's the federal level that is to blame, he said.

"We're making it so difficult to do anything that many of these projects are not coming together," he said.

The federal government needs to push permits through faster, he said. "That doesn't mean we're taking shortcuts to permitting. It just means we get to it quick."

Related topics