Why do GOP lawmakers want to ban state-level AI regulations for 10 years?

Deep down in the massive Republican budget settlement bill released this week, it’s a surprising measure that it’s necessary to ensure America’s dominance in the growing field of artificial intelligence. The bill is designed to leverage the GOP’s Congressional majority, which is intended to expand priorities in Medicaid and other conservative policies. But it also enacts a complete moratorium on state-level AI regulations for ten years after the legislation is enacted.

Supporters argue that the measure coincides with the Trump administration’s focus on American AI leadership. However, critics argue that the proposed law allows predatory high-tech industries to roughly run local efforts to tackle challenges in still-developed areas.

Focusing on state-level AI laws, Oka said AI regulations at the federal level “remains,” prompted state legislatures to consider “nearly 700 AI bills” only last year. “It’s extremely difficult to imagine coming up with ways to adhere to 50 different sets of regulations,” said Openai CEO Sam Altman at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing last week.

Altman argued that the patchwork of local laws “slows us down when we think it’s not interested in anyone.” The “inconsistent web of law” said it would “fragment national policies and delay innovation” and “create legal and technical barriers to scaling AI systems across state lines.”

But by establishing the federal government as “the only regulator of US tech companies in booming industry,” critics said, the bill represents a “gift” for an industry that “enables the harmful and discriminatory use of emerging technologies,” the Washington Post said. The push for local regulatory cuts “also stands in contrast to the advocacy of Republican national rights in education and abortion policies.”

The proposed language of law is “span enough to cover relatively new generative AI tools,” said Emmanuel Meiberg in 404 Media, applying for “technology that has existed for much longer.” As a result, it is “impossible to enforce” laws designed to “protect people and let them know about AI systems.” AI researcher Gary Marcus said in an open letter signed by several state lawmakers that it was “not a step forward” in deregulation in 10 years. “It’s abandoning liability,” Marcus said, “is deeply problematic in any situation,” but he said it was “particularly dangerous” given the way AI is already disrupting health, education, employment and other areas.

The state has “quietly reached the forefront” in its technology regulation efforts, according to Scott Brennen, Director of Technology Policy and Zeve Sanderson, Executive Director of Social Media and Politics at the NYU Center. Meanwhile, Congress “patterned, backtracked, and ultimately produced almost AI regulation,” and “the only collaborative legislative effort aimed at balancing the myriad risks and benefits of AI without providing its own solution.”

What’s next?

The state-level push for AI regulation will ultimately “force the move to Washington,” the Financial Times said. Even the “anti-regulated evangelical” senator (R-Texas), who defeated the act of bipartisans defeating AI-generated sexual imagery, to deal with AI-generated sexual images, would likely be inevitable if they embraced the “need to act in certain cases.” This leads to “a strange alliance and an unpredictable zigzag along the way.”

As part of the settlement bill, the proposed limits on AI regulations could not be derived, which could “enhance the path to passing” with the broader law, the Post said. If the entire bill passes, the logic of including AI regulations in bills that are superficially restricted to budgetary issues would “confront scrutiny from the Senate.”