State lawmakers are sounding the alarm as their efforts to regulate artificial intelligence face a nationwide challenge.
Many states have moved swiftly, enacting laws aimed at shielding children from deceptive content online, securing elections from misleading AI fakes, and safeguarding critical infrastructure in the face of new technological risks.
Lawmakers in places like Maryland, North Dakota, Alabama, and Wisconsin have all passed rules designed to strike a balance between new opportunities and the need for public protection.
These measures have not emerged along party lines.
Drafted and passed with cooperation from both major parties, these reforms are largely a response to the concerns voiced by constituents who see both the promise and peril of rapid technological change.
States Push Back as Congress Considers Limits
Now, those achievements are under threat due to a provision deep within the latest reconciliation bill that recently passed the House. Simply put, this provision would ban every state from enforcing any law about state AI regulation ban for the next ten years.
There are currently no national-level rules in place to fill the gap, so this move could wipe out years of state work and leave a regulatory vacuum.
The concerns are not hypothetical.
Last year, Colorado’s Governor Jared Polis signed off on pioneering legislation meant to keep up with advances in AI technology. States like Kansas and Montana have followed, passing laws defending cybersecurity and protecting essential infrastructure from exploitation.
Law enforcement officials have also weighed in.
A bipartisan coalition of 40 attorneys general recently issued a blunt warning about the preemption clause, stating, “The impact of such a broad moratorium would be sweeping and wholly destructive of reasonable state efforts to prevent known harms associated with AI.”
Supporters of the freeze argue that uniform rules are better for business and innovation because they ease compliance, but many state leaders are not swayed by this reasoning.
Thomas C. Alexander, President of the South Carolina Senate, and Jacqui Irwin, Assembly member in California and co-chairs of a key legislative task force, frame it as a matter of both responsibility and constitutional obligation. “We have both the right and responsibility to protect our constituents through laws that reflect distinct local contexts and challenges,” explained Alexander.
Industry experts often have a seat at the table as states hash out these new laws, but legislators insist that local input and unique needs cannot be ignored or dismissed through a sweeping, one size fits all pause.
As the Senate prepares to review the reconciliation bill, states are watching closely, worried that a decade long block could halt progress and stymie their ability to respond to the fast moving debate over federal oversight presented by artificial intelligence.
