GOP Proposes 10-Year Ban on State AI Regulation in Budget Bill

GOP sneaks decade-long AI regulation ban into spending bill

On Sunday night, House Republicans added language to the Budget Reconciliation bill that would block all state and local governments from regulating AI for 10 years, 404 Media reports. The provision, introduced by Representative Brett Guthrie of Kentucky, states that "no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10 year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act." The broad wording of the proposal would prevent states from enforcing both existing and proposed laws designed to protect citizens from AI systems. For example, California's recent law requiring health care providers to disclose when they use generative AI to communicate with patients would potentially become unenforceable. New York's 2021 law mandating bias audits for AI tools used in hiring decisions would also be affected, 404 Media notes. The measure would also halt legislation set to take effect in 2026 in California that requires AI developers to publicly document the data used to train their models. The ban could also restrict how states allocate federal funding for AI programs. States currently control how they use federal dollars and can direct funding toward AI initiatives that may conflict with the administration's technology priorities. The Education Department's AI programs represent one example where states might pursue different approaches than those favored by the White House and its tech industry allies. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce, chaired by Guthrie, scheduled consideration of the text during the budget reconciliation markup on May 13. The language defines AI systems broadly enough to encompass both newer generative AI tools and older automated decision-making technologies. The reconciliation bill primarily focuses on cuts to Medicaid access and increased health care fees for millions of Americans. The AI provision appears as an addition to these broader health care changes, potentially limiting debate on the technology's policy implications. The move is already inspiring backlash. On Monday, tech safety groups and at least one Democrat criticized the proposal, reports The Hill. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), the ranking member on the Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee, called the proposal a "giant gift to Big Tech," while nonprofit groups like the Tech Oversight Project and Consumer Reports warned it would leave consumers unprotected from AI harms like deepfakes and bias. Big Tech's White House connections President Trump has already reversed several Biden-era executive orders on AI safety and risk mitigation. The push to prevent state-level AI regulation represents an escalation in the administration's industry-friendly approach to AI policy. Perhaps it's no surprise, as the AI industry has cultivated close ties with the Trump administration since before the president took office. For example, Tesla CEO Elon Musk serves in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), while entrepreneur David Sacks acts as "AI czar," and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen reportedly advises the administration. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman appeared with Trump in an AI datacenter development plan announcement in January. By limiting states' authority over AI regulation, the provision could prevent state governments from using federal funds to develop AI oversight programs or support initiatives that diverge from the administration's deregulatory stance. This restriction would extend beyond enforcement to potentially affect how states design and fund their own AI governance frameworks.

States Want to Regulate AI. Why Congress May Push Back

Expertise artificial intelligence, home energy, heating and cooling, home technology States wouldn't be able to enforce their own regulations on artificial intelligence technology for a decade under a plan being considered in the US House of Representatives. The legislation, to be considered Tuesday by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, says no state or political subdivision "may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems" for 10 years. The proposal would need the approval of both chambers of Congress and President Trump before it becomes law. AI developers and some lawmakers have said federal action is necessary to keep states from creating a patchwork of different rules and requirements across the country that could slow the technology's growth. The rapid growth in generative AI since ChatGPT exploded on the scene at the end of 2022 has led companies to fit the technology in as many spaces as possible. The economic implications are significant, as the US and China race to see which country's tech will predominate, but generative AI poses privacy, transparency and other risks for consumers that lawmakers have sought to temper. "We need, as an industry and as a country, one clear federal standard, whatever it may be," Alexandr Wang, founder and CEO of the data company Scale AI, told lawmakers during an April congressional hearing. "But we need one, we need clarity as to one federal standard and have preemption to prevent this outcome where you have 50 different standards." Efforts to limit states' ability to regulate the technology could mean fewer consumer protections around a technology that is increasingly seeping into every aspect of American life. "There have been a lot of discussions at the state level, and I would think that it's important for us to approach this problem at multiple levels," said Anjana Susarla, a professor at Michigan State University who studies AI. "We could approach it at the national level. We can approach it at the state level, too. I think we need both." The proposed language would bar states from enforcing any regulation, including those already on the books. There are exceptions -- rules and laws that make things easier for AI development and those that apply the same standards to non-AI models and systems that do similar things would be OK. These kinds of regulations are starting to pop up already. The biggest focus isn't in the US, but in Europe, where the European Union has implemented standards for AI already. But states are starting to get in on the action. Colorado passed a set of consumer protections last year, set to go into effect in 2026. California adopted more than a dozen AI-related laws last year. Other states have laws and regulations. These often deal with specific issues like deepfakes. So far in 2025, state lawmakers have introduced at least 550 proposals around AI, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In the April House committee hearing, Rep. Jay Obernolte, a Republican from California, signaled a desire to get ahead of more state-level regulation. "We have a limited amount of legislative runway to be able to get that problem solved before the states get too far ahead," he said. AI developers have asked for any guardrails placed on their work to be consistent and streamlined. In a hearing by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation last week, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, that an EU-style regulatory system "would be disastrous" for the industry. Altman suggested instead that the industry develop its own standards. Asked by Sen. Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, if industry self-regulation is enough at the moment, Altman said he thought some guardrails would be good but, "it's easy for it to go too far. As I have learned more about how the world works, I am more afraid that it could go too far and have really bad consequences." (Disclosure: Ziff Davis, CNET's parent company, in April filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.) Consumer advocates say more regulations are needed, and hampering states' ability to do so could hurt the privacy and safety of users. "AI is being used widely to make decisions about people's lives without transparency, accountability, or recourse -- it's also facilitating chilling fraud, impersonation, and surveillance," Ben Winters, director of AI and privacy at the Consumer Federation of America, said in a statement. "A ten-year pause would lead to more discrimination, more deception, and less control -- simply put, it's siding with tech companies over the people they impact." Susarla said the pervasiveness of AI across industries means states might be able to regulate issues like privacy and transparency more broadly, without focusing on AI. But a moratorium on AI regulation could lead to such policies being tied up in lawsuits. "It has to be some kind of balance between 'we don't want to stop innovation,' but on the other hand, we also need to recognize that there can be real consequences," she said.

Republicans push for a decadelong ban on states regulating AI

Republicans want to stop states from regulating AI. On Sunday, a Republican-led House committee submitted a budget reconciliation bill that proposes blocking states from enforcing "any law or regulation" targeting an exceptionally broad range of automated computing systems for 10 years after the law is enacted -- a move that would stall efforts to regulate everything from AI chatbots to online search results. Democrats are calling the new provision a "giant gift" to Big Tech, and organizations that promote AI oversight, like Americans for Responsible Innovation (ARI), say it could have "catastrophic consequences" for the public. It's a gift companies like OpenAI have recently been seeking in Washington, aiming to avoid a slew of pending and active state laws. The budget reconciliation process allows lawmakers to fast-track bills related to government spending by requiring only a majority in the Senate rather than 60 votes to pass.

Republicans Try to Cram Ban on AI Regulation Into Budget Reconciliation Bill

Republicans try to use the Budget Reconciliation bill to stop states from regulating AI entirely for 10 years. Late last night, House Republicans introduced new language to the Budget Reconciliation bill that will immiserate the lives of millions of Americans by cutting their access to Medicaid, and making life much more difficult for millions more by making them pay higher fees when they seek medical care. While a lot of attention will be justifiably given to these cuts, the bill has also crammed in new language that attempts to entirely stop states from enacting any regulation against artificial intelligence. "...no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10 year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act," says the text of the bill introduced Sunday night by Congressman Brett Guthrie of Kentucky, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The text of the bill will be considered by the House at the budget reconciliation markup on May 13. That language of the bill, how it goes on to define AI and other "automated systems," and what it considers "regulation," is broad enough to cover relatively new generative AI tools and technology that has existed for much longer. In theory, that language will make it impossible to enforce many existing and proposed state laws that aim to protect people from and inform them about AI systems. For example, last year California passed a law that requires health care providers to disclose when they have used generative AI to communicate clinical information to patients. In 2021, New York passed the first law in the United States requiring employers to conduct bias audits of AI tools used for employment decisions. California also passed a law that will go into effect in 2026 which requires developers of generative AI models to share detailed documentation on its websites about the data it used to develop these models, an extremely consequential law as AI companies are currently hiding their exploitation of copyrighted materials in order to create these models, as we have shown repeatedly. In theory none of these states will be able to enforce these laws if Republicans manage to pass the Budget Reconciliation bill with this current language. The AI industry has been sucking up to Trump since before he got into office, and his administration is intertwined with AI executives, be it Elon Musk at DOGE, David Sacks as an AI czar, or Marc Andreessen as an advisor. Trump has returned the favor by undoing Biden era executive orders aimed at mitigating AI risk. Preventing states from charting their own paths on this issue and trying to protect people from these systems will be one of the most radical positions Republicans have taken on this issue yet.

New Law Would Ban All AI Regulation for a Decade

Republican lawmakers slipped language into the Budget Reconciliation Bill this week that would ban AI regulation, on the federal and state levels, for a decade, as 404 Media reports. An updated version of the bill introduced last night by Congressman Brett Guthrie (R-KY), who chairs the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, includes a new and sweeping clause about AI advancement declaring that "no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the ten year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act." It's a remarkably expansive provision that, as 404 notes, likely reflects the engraining of Silicon Valley figures and influences into Washington and the White House. Tech CEOs have vied for president Donald Trump's attention since he was inaugurated, and the American tech industry writ large has become a fierce and powerful lobbying force. The Trump administration is also stacked with AI-invested tech moguls like David Sacks, Marc Andreessen, and Elon Musk. Meanwhile, the impacts of a regulation-free AI landscape are already being felt. Emotive, addictive AI companions have been rolled out explicitly to teenagers without evidence of safety, AI companies are missing their climate targets and spewing unchecked emissions into American neighborhoods, and nonconsensual deepfakes of women and girls are flooding social media. No regulation will likely mean a lot more fresh hell where that came from -- and little chance of stemming the tide. The update in the proposed law also seeks to appropriate a staggering $500 million over ten years to fund efforts to infuse the federal government's IT systems with "commercial" AI tech and unnamed "automation technologies." In other words, not only does the government want to completely stifle efforts to regulate a fast-developing technology, it also wants to integrate those unregulated technologies into the beating digital heart of the federal government. The bill also comes after states including New York and California have worked to pass some limited AI regulations, as 404 notes. Were the bill to be signed into law, it would seemingly render those laws -- which, for instance, ensure that employers review AI hiring tools for bias -- unenforceable. As it stands, the bill is in limbo. The proposal is massive, and includes drastic spending cuts to services like Medicaid and climate funds, slashes that Democrats largely oppose; Republican budget hawks, meanwhile, have raised concerns over the bill's hefty price tag. Whether it survives in its current form -- its controversial AI provisions included -- remains to be seen.

Tech safety groups slam House GOP proposal for 10-year ban on state AI regulation

A host of tech safety groups and at least one Democrat are blasting House Republicans' proposal to block states from regulating artificial intelligence (AI) models for the next 10 years, arguing consumers will be less protected. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), the ranking member on the Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee, said on Monday the proposal is a "giant gift to Big Tech." "The Republicans' 10-year ban on the enforcement of state laws protecting consumers from potential dangers of new artificial intelligence systems gives Big Tech free reign to take advantage of children and families," she wrote, adding the proposal, "shows that Republicans care more about profits than people." The Republican tax bill, released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Sunday night, proposes barring states from enforcing laws or regulations governing AI models, AI systems or automated decision systems. The proposal includes some exemptions for laws that intend to "remove legal impediments" or "facilitate the deployment or operation" of AI systems, as well as those that seek to "streamline licensing, permitting, routing, zoning, procurement or reporting procedures." State laws that do not impose any substantive design, performance, data-handling, documentation, civil liability, taxation, fee, or other requirement" on AI systems would also be allowed under the proposal. Schakowsky claimed the proposal would give AI developers a green light to "ignore consumer privacy protections spread," let AI-generated deepfakes spread, while allowing them to "profile and deceive" consumers. The bill underscores the Trump administration's focus on AI innovation and acceleration over regulation. President Trump has rolled back various Biden-era AI policies that placed guardrails on AI developers, arguing these were obstacles to the fast development of AI. The Tech Oversight Project, a nonprofit tech watchdog group, pointed out Congress has failed to pass most AI-related legislation, prompting action on the state level. "The so-called 'state's rights' party is trying to slip a provision into the reconciliation package that will kneecap states' ability to protect people and children from proven AI harms and scams. It's not only hypocritical, it's a massive handout to Big Tech," Tech Oversight Project Executive Director Sacha Haworth said. "While Congress has struggled to establish AI safeguards, states are leading the charge in tackling AI's worst use cases, and it comes as no surprise that Big Tech is trying to stop that effort dead in its tracks," Haworth added. It comes amid a broader debate over federal preemption for AI regulation, which several AI industry heads have pushed for as state laws create a patchwork of rules to follow. Last week, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman testified before Congress, where he expressed support for "one federal framework," and expressed concerns with a "burdensome" state-by-state approach. The Open Markets Institute, a DC-based think tank advocating against monopolies, called it a "stunning assault on state sovereignty." "This is the broligarchy in action: billionaires and lobbyists writing the laws to lock in their dominance, at the direct expense of democratic oversight, with no new rules, no obligations, and no accountability allowed. This is not innovation protection -- it's a corporate coup," wrote Courtney C. Radsch, director of the Center for Journalism and Liberty at Open Markets Institute. U.S. states considered nearly 700 legislative proposals last year, according to an analysis from the Business Software Alliance. Nonprofit Consumer Reports also came out against the proposal, pointing to the potential dangers of AI, such as sexually explicit deepfakes. "This incredibly broad preemption would prevent states from taking action to deal with all sorts of harms, from non-consensual intimate AI images, audio, and video, to AI-driven threats to critical infrastructure or market manipulation," said Grace Geyde, a policy analyst for Consumer Reports, "to protecting AI whistleblowers, to assessing high-risk AI decision-making systems for bias or other errors, to simply requiring AI chatbots to disclose that they aren't human." Commerce and Energy Committee Chair Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) defended the committee's reconciliation proposal later Monday. "This reconciliation is a win for Americans in every part of the country, and it's a shame Democrats are intentionally reflexively opposing commonsense policies to strengthen the program," he wrote. Meanwhile, some tech industry groups celebrated the proposal. NetChoice, the trade association representing some of the largest tech firms in the world like Google, Amazon and Meta, said the "commendable" proposal will help American "stay first in the research and development" of emerging tech. "America can't lead the world in new technologies like AI if we tie the hands of innovators with overwhelming red tape before they can even get off the ground," said NetChoice Director of Policy Pat Hedger.

House GOP proposes 10-year ban on state AI regulations

A Republican tax bill released late Sunday seeks to block states from regulating artificial intelligence (AI) models for the next 10 years. The bill text from the House Energy and Commerce Committee would bar states from enforcing laws or regulations governing AI models, AI systems or automated decision systems. It provides some exemptions for laws and regulations that aim to "remove legal impediments" or "facilitate the deployment or operation" of AI systems, as well as those that seek to "streamline licensing, permitting, routing, zoning, procurement, or reporting procedures." It would also permit state laws that do not "impose any substantive design, performance, data-handling, documentation, civil liability, taxation, fee, or other requirement" on AI systems. The bill, which comes as Republicans gear up to advance President Trump's legislative agenda this week, aligns with the administration's emphasis on AI innovation instead of regulation. Shortly after taking office, Trump rescinded former President Biden's executive order establishing guardrails around AI and fielded input on his own forthcoming "AI Action Plan." Vice President Vance also slammed "excessive regulation" of AI during his first international trip in February. "We believe that excessive regulation of the AI sector could kill a transformative industry just as it's taking off," Vance said at the AI Action Summit in Paris. "And I'd like to see that deregulatory flavor making a lot of the conversations this conference." Meanwhile, as AI regulation at the federal level remains in limbo, states have moved in and sought to develop laws around the rapidly developing technology. State legislatures considered nearly 700 AI bills last year, 113 of which were ultimately enacted into law, according to the Business Software Alliance. California launched a controversial effort last year to regulate extreme risks from AI that faced pushback from federal lawmakers. Senate Bill 1047, which sought to require powerful AI models to undergo safety testing before they could be released and hold developers liable for severe harms, was ultimately vetoed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D).

House Committee Aims to Ban States From Regulating AI | PYMNTS.com

A House committee is reportedly trying to add language to President Donald Trump's tax and spending bill that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence. The House Energy and Commerce Committee drafted the bill and will debate it Tuesday (May 13), Bloomberg reported Monday (May 12), adding that the draft bill would place a 10-year moratorium on state regulation in the AI field. The language is unlikely to be included in the tax bill, though, because the special parliamentary procedure being used to move the bill through Congress requires that provisions be primarily fiscal, according to the report. Still, the move will show where key Republicans stand on the matter of AI regulation, the report said, adding tech executives have encouraged Congress to pass federal legislation that would prohibit states from creating their own rules around AI. Tech executives have said that they would have difficulty dealing with a variety of state standards, according to the report. Proponents of regulation at the state level have said that state lawmakers should be free to pass laws that would promote AI safety and prevent the misuse of the technology, per the report. When several tech giants, AI startups and financial institutions weighed in on the White House's proposed AI Action Plan, one recurring theme was a desire for regulatory consistency to unify the patchwork of state laws, PYMNTS reported in April. In comments submitted by companies and released April 24 by the federal government, Meta warned that fragmented state-level rules would raise costs and stifle innovation, Uber urged federal preemption to eliminate the growing patchwork of inconsistent state AI laws, and J.P. Morgan Chase echoed the concerns of others about a patchwork of state laws and called for the federal government to preempt state laws. Colorado passed a sweeping AI law last year to go into effect in February 2026. It has faced backlash from industry groups saying it is too "rigid and vague" and from consumer advocates who believe it doesn't go far enough. Last week, government leaders called for a delay of the law's implementation until January 2027.