Ban On State AI Laws Facing Mounting Opposition From State Policymakers

“The proposed 10-year freeze of state and local regulation of AI and automated decision systems would cut short democratic discussion of AI policy in the states with a sweeping moratorium that threatens to halt a broad array of laws and restrict policymakers from responding to emerging issues,” the letter read. “In an increasingly fraught digital environment, young people are facing new threats online, seniors are targeted by the emergence of AI-generated scams, and workers and creators face new challenges in an AI-integrated economy. Over the next decade, AI will raise some of the most important public policy questions of our time, and it is critical that state policymakers maintain the ability to respond.”

The lawmakers’ letter follows a similar missive sent to Congress last week by a bipartisan group of 40 state attorneys general also expressing opposition to the proposed freeze. Previously, the National Association of State Chief Information Offices issued a press release saying it was “extremely concerned” about the ban claiming it would undermine states’ “efforts to deliver services to their citizens and ensure responsible data protections.”

Meanwhile, some members of Congress who voted in favor of the overall bill last month are now expressing opposition to the state-law moratorium provision.

“Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279 of the [One Big Beautiful Bill] that strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) posted on X (formerly Twitter) on Tuesday. “I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there.”

The provision was widely noted in reporting on the bill when its full text was released ahead of the House vote.

Proponents of the ban say it is necessary to prevent the emergence of a patchwork of state regulations around a technology wide viewed as critical to national economic growth and security.

Related: Disrupting Lumma Stealer: Microsoft Leads Global Action Against Favored Cybercrime Tool

To date, California, Colorado, Utah, and Tennessee are the only states to enact laws specifically targeting AI, while another 14 have proposed similar measures. But analysts estimate that at least 39 states have enacted technology-related regulations that potentially could be nullified under the broad language in the federal legislation.

The House bill now faces uncertain prospects in the Senate. Several senators have proposed changes to various provisions, and at least two, Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) have expressed opposition specifically to the 10-year state-law moratorium. Under the Senate’s arcane procedures, some elements of the House-passed version may also need to be stripped out for the bill to comply with rules regarding what can be included in a budget reconciliation package.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who chairs the Commerce Committee that would have jurisdiction over the bill if Senate leadership decides to go the committee route instead of bringing the measure directly to the floor, has hinted he might introduce a measure to create a federal framework that would preempt state AI laws in a separate bill. Such a measure would require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, however, instead of the simple majority needed to pass the budget bill.

Any changes to the package in the Senate would also require the bill to be sent bill back to the House for a new vote. If the state-law ban provision is not removed, and Rep. Greene makes good on her vow to vote “no” if it is included, it could again jeopardize passage of the overall package. Two GOP members voted against the bill the first time, along with all Democrats. With their razor-thin majority, Republicans can only afford to lose three votes of their own in any party-line tally. A “no” from Greene potentially could deadlock the vote, preventing the law from advancing.