big tech’s Strategies to block state-level AI legislation i’m back. Silicon Valley allies in the Trump administration have been pressuring lawmakers to block language that would have prevented states from including AI laws in (originally unrelated) national defense authorization bills, and the president has drafted an executive order aimed at, as its title declares, “eliminate state law impediments to national AI policy.”
The proposed EO leaked this week would create a framework that would penalize U.S. states that pass or have already passed AI laws, primarily by threatening lawsuits and withholding federal broadband funding. It would also centralize power to Trump’s AI and crypto czar, venture capitalist and PayPal mafia member David Sachs, further integrating and entrenching the Trump administration with Silicon Valley executives. Modern technological oligarchy.
Before we get into it, let me just say that this work is made possible by readers who donate $6 a month (the equivalent of a decent latte or beer), or $60 a year. I’m able to keep most of this reporting and writing free and available to everyone thanks to my paid supporters, the divine beings. If you are a regular reader and are able, please consider becoming involved so I can continue this work. thank you very much.
Readers of this website knew it was only a matter of time before the movement to repeal state AI laws would gain momentum again.
Behind the Republican campaign to ban Silicon Valley and state AI laws
After all, earlier this year, with key allies firmly embedded in the Trump administration, Silicon Valley’s leading AI companies engaged in intense lobbying Pass a ban on state-level AI legislation in an omnibus budget bill. That effort is well documented on these pages. In the end, it was over soon;like when Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn voted *1 vote short of an amendment to protect the state’s AI regulations in the Nashville music industry.
This new effort is again premised on inserting language into an unrelated bill to block state-level AI legislation, and you can see how unpopular and controversial this is (even within the Republican caucus, more on this later).
Here it is bloomberg:
Republican billionaire donors Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz have called Republican leaders urging them to include pre-emption provisions for AI regulation in the defense bill, according to people familiar with the matter. Alphabet Co., Ltd.Google, Meta Platforms Co., Ltd. and OpenAI LLC We’re also lobbying the federal government to block state AI regulations…
Senate Majority Leader John Thune acknowledged Wednesday that Republican leaders are trying to include preemption in the defense bill. He said negotiators are working to develop limits on state AI regulation that are still “consistent with ensuring that states have some role in how companies operate within their states.”
House and Senate leaders have so far been unable to reach a consensus on specific AI provisions in the defense bill, with multiple proposals floating around, according to people familiar with the matter. Lawmakers and White House officials who have spoken say the situation is fluid…The people said Mr. Sachs is meeting directly with Republican lawmakers to hammer out language that could pass the House and Senate.
This is seen as Republicans’ last chance, and perhaps their best chance, to get through any such legislation this year, as politically complex congressional elections begin next year. After all, this remains a profoundly and clearly anti-democratic project, one that is anathema to the spirit of federalism that many Republicans claim to hold dear.
In fact, this is why it’s so vocally opposed by figures like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Mike Davis.
Mike Davis, a Republican lawmaker and ally of President Trump, told Bloomberg that “there will be a fierce backlash from the conservative grassroots against the Republican Party selling out voters to support big tech companies.” “If big tech companies want federal preemption, they need to protect the four Cs: conservatives, children, communities, and creators. Otherwise, this is just an amnesty for AI.”
In other words, while the state’s anti-AI legislation taking shape is an eerie and dark reflection of this technopolitical moment, its path to passage is by no means guaranteed. Still, given that the final vote will be decided by one vote and that Ms. Blackburn’s well-prepared colleagues are sure to promise her some exemptions and immunities, I would not object to that.
The executive order, which you can read in full at the link above, builds on the Trump administration’s designation of AI as a national security concern above all else (“Our national security demands that we win this election”). Again, the overarching goal is not economic prosperity, jobs, or even innovation, but domination. “It is the policy of the United States to maintain and strengthen America’s global AI advantage through a unified national policy framework for AI that minimizes burdens,” the EO states.
From there, EO does three main things.
Creates an “AI Litigation Task Force” whose “sole responsibility” is to challenge state AI laws. This is pretty wild, even if the effectiveness is questionable. Essentially, it’s an open threat to use federal resources as a deterrent to denounce states that pass AI laws and tie them up in court.
It threatened to withhold federal funding for broadband in states that enact AI laws that do not pass what the EO calls “adverse state AI law evaluations.” Specifically, the order pertains to laws that “require AI models to alter their truthful output,” in line with earlier anti-woke AI executive orders this summer, laws that the administration considers anti-discrimination laws. But you may be wondering, who decides what counts as “truthful output”? This tells us:
Anointing David Sachs, Trump’s AI, and Crypto Czar as a key intermediary to mediate all of the above efforts. Effectively, this means that venture capitalists and Silicon Valley power brokers will officially have even more influence in deciding which states and state legislators to target and penalize for embarking on AI regulation efforts.
In short, because the executive order is legally limited in what it can actually do, it essentially serves as a formal notice that the Trump administration, taking direct marching orders from Silicon Valley venture capitalists and AI executives, will sue, harass, penalize, and withhold funding wherever possible if states pass AI laws. In other words, it aims to induce an atrophic effect.
President Trump’s AI action plan is a blueprint for a dystopia
It’s unclear how well that will work. As the Trump administration seeks to intervene in the democratic process, especially in an area as inflammatory as AI, many blue state legislators may welcome the opportunity to challenge Trump. What’s remarkable to me about all of this is that Silicon Valley elites are willing to “openly” engage with this agenda. In terms of tone, in less than a generation we have gone from “we are a key ally of Obama’s project of hope and change” to “we will publicly ally with Trump to block the democratic process if compliance with some regulations can be avoided.”
Now that Silicon Valley enjoys direct access to power, there is little need to convey an ambitious message anymore. To that end, nothing emphasizes the state of this new bond more than the fact that in the same week that Trumpworld announced plans to help the tech industry clean up regulatory weeds, half of the beneficiaries of that effort were all gathered at the White House to attend a dinner with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
That’s because President Trump’s AI czar, prominent venture capitalist David Sachs, OpenAI’s Greg Brockman, Elon Musk, and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang attended a Saudi investment forum at the White House this week. In the context of the EO described above, perhaps this serves as a useful visual cue. Suppose California passes a law that says AI tools cannot be used to automate hiring processes unless they can be shown to be non-discriminatory. (This is just a hypothesis, so Gavin Newsom vetoed anyone who did that.anyway. ) Brockman or Musk could turn to Sachs and say, “Hey, OpenAI and XAI have enterprise products that do that, and we all know that promiscuity is code for “wokeness.” You might say, “Can you have the AI Litigation Task Force look into that?” They thus have their own (also questionably effective) framework for filing complaints, enforcing their will, and harassing states and legislators they don’t like.
On the other hand, OpenAI talking openly The federal government is “blocking” investment in AI data center infrastructure, the US owns Intel stock, and more as the bubble continues to expand. Whether or not the AI Act forbids it, Silicon Valley and the state will become even closer together.
So, as the year draws to a close, things are pretty much the same as they were at the beginning. An emboldened tech oligarchy is extremely reluctant to promote openly anti-democratic objectives and demonstrate unequivocal loyalty to the Trump administration in exchange for challenging the establishment of a deregulatory regime once considered beyond the realm of dreams. That might be the case this time.
Alright, that’s all for today. Please forgive any typos or poor writing. I caught a pretty bad cold, which once again got in the way of my more ambitious writing and reporting plans. But if I get a good rest, I’ll be able to practice again on Sunday and be back at full speed next week. Thank you everyone. Please take a good rest.
