The U.S. Capitol building is seen from the Washington Monument in Washington, D.C., on November 17. On Monday, more than 200 state lawmakers urged Congress to reject a defense bill provision that would preempt state regulation of artificial intelligence. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo
Hundreds of state lawmakers, both Republican and Democratic, are calling on Congress to reject a national defense bill provision that would strip their powers over artificial intelligence.
The provision, which would preempt existing state laws that regulate AI, is part of the National Defense Authorization Act. In a letter dated Tuesday, the bipartisan group of more than 200 state legislators urged lawmakers in both the House and the Senate to allow states to regulate AI, or risk “setting back progress.”
“A blanket prohibition on state and local AI and automated decision-system regulation would abruptly cut off active democratic debate in statehouses and impose a sweeping pause on policymaking at the very moment when communities are seeking responsive solutions,” the state lawmakers wrote.
“We appreciate congressional engagement on AI and stand ready to collaborate on thoughtful national policy,” they added. “But after years without comprehensive federal action on privacy and social media harms, a broad preemption of state and local AI laws until Congress acts would set back progress and undercut existing protections.”
The Trump administration and federal lawmakers are working on a bill that would prevent states from enacting certain AI laws. Last week, President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social that the United States “MUST have one federal standard instead of a patchwork of 40 state regulatory regimes.”
On Monday, an AI industry super PAC launched a $10 million campaign, urging Congress to draft a national AI policy.
“There is broad public demand for congressional action and a uniform national approach to AI,” said Nathan Leamer, executive director of Build American AI, the PAC’s advocacy arm.
State lawmakers who signed the letter disagreed, arguing “varied approaches” to AI would be better.
“State experimentation and varied approaches to AI governance help build a stronger national foundation for sound policymaking,” they argue. “Freezing state action now would stifle needed innovation in policy design at a moment when it is most needed.”
