White House Pressures GOP-led States to Back Off AI Regulations

According to a Wall Street Journal report, the White House has actively lobbied lawmakers and governors in at least six Republican-controlled states, including Florida, Utah, Nebraska, Missouri, Tennessee and Louisiana, urging them to reconsider or abandon bills that would impose transparency requirements or safety guardrails on AI developers.  The interventions have been led in part by the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and senior advisers, reflecting a coordinated federal strategy to preempt a patchwork of state-level rules.

Administration officials argue that divergent state regulations would undermine U.S. competitiveness in the global AI race. A White House official characterized the outreach as routine coordination, per the Journal, but lawmakers in several states have described it as more coercive, particularly given the implicit threat of financial consequences.

That threat stems from a December executive order warning that states pursuing AI laws deemed inconsistent with federal priorities could lose access to hundreds of millions of dollars in federal broadband funding.  The leverage appears to be having an effect. In Nebraska, state Sen. Tanya Storer abandoned legislation that would have required AI companies to implement safety plans, disclose risks and report harms to the state attorney general.

“While I understand the desire for a national framework, I am disappointed that states are being told to wait to address this critical issue given how quickly and profoundly this technology is impacting our families’ safety and livelihoods,” Storer said.

Similarly, staff in the office of Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen reportedly signaled that preserving federal broadband funding took precedence over advancing AI regulation after discussions with the White House, according to the Journal report.

Read more: Musk’s xAI Sues Colorado Over Landmark AI Regulation

The administration’s intervention is closely tied to its parallel push for federal legislation that would preempt state laws and establish national standards. The White House released a framework in March designed to accelerate AI development while incorporating limited concessions on issues such as child safety and energy costs. However, that effort faces significant headwinds in Congress, where bipartisan divisions persist over how aggressively to regulate the technology.

“We can’t sit around and wait forever,” said Louisiana Senate President Cameron Henry, who agreed to pause state action at the administration’s request but warned that patience may wear thin if Congress fails to act.

Some GOP lawmakers in Congress, including Sens. Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn, have defended the role of states, arguing they should be free to act until Congress delivers a uniform framework.  Others have aligned more closely with the White House’s position that premature state regulation risks stifling innovation.

The tensions are also evident at the state level. Missouri state Sen. Joe Nicola criticized the administration’s tactics after his AI liability bill was blocked amid concerns about losing nearly $1 billion in federal funding. “I’m offended that the president would threaten us by withholding funds for protecting our people and doing our job,” Nicola said.

In Utah, the White House took the unusual step of formally opposing a state bill, calling it “an unfixable bill that goes against the administration’s AI Agenda.”  The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Doug Fiefia, pushed back, accusing “unelected bureaucrats” of intervening on behalf of industry interests. “If you talk to people, they agree this is something that needs to be regulated and reined in,” he said.

The administration’s campaign reflects a broader strategic goal of preventing regulatory fragmentation while buying time to secure a federal standard more aligned with its priorities. But with congressional action uncertain, the result is a regulatory stalemate—one that leaves both states and industry navigating an increasingly fraught and fragmented policy landscape.