By Troy Landon, Senior Correspondent
On June 3, 2025, a bipartisan coalition of 260 state lawmakers from all 50 U.S. states urged Congress to strike a controversial provision from President Donald Trump’s proposed tax and immigration bill. The provision in question would impose a 10-year moratorium on any state-level regulations related to artificial intelligence (AI), sparking intense debate over the future of tech governance in the U.S.
The bill, which has already cleared the House of Representatives with Republican backing, claims that a consistent, nationwide approach to AI regulation would benefit American companies, particularly in their competition against Chinese tech firms. However, state legislators warn that a decade-long freeze would leave states powerless to address rapidly emerging dangers such as deepfakes, algorithmic discrimination, and AI-driven scams.
Bipartisan Resistance Grows
Organized with the help of several advocacy groups, the opposition letter includes signatures from lawmakers across the political aisle. Among the leading voices are Republican Representative Brandon Guffey of South Carolina and Democratic Senator Liz Larson of South Dakota. They argue that the proposal fundamentally threatens states’ rights to act in the best interest of their residents.
According to these legislators, states have historically served as innovation labs for tackling complex societal challenges. Many have already enacted laws targeting the misuse of AI in elections, the exploitation of deepfake technology, and the ethical use of algorithms in hiring and housing. Under the proposed federal moratorium, these state laws could be invalidated or left unenforceable, stalling local innovation and enforcement efforts.
Several lawmakers cited growing public concern about AI’s influence on privacy, personal data, and misinformation. They argue that waiting for a federal response could be dangerous given the technology’s rapid evolution and the localized nature of many threats.
The Role of Civil Society and Workers’ Groups
The backlash against the moratorium extends beyond the halls of state legislatures. Over 140 organizations representing civil society, consumer rights, and technology workers have publicly denounced the bill. Many claim the measure is overly influenced by powerful industry groups and lacks sufficient transparency.
Critics suggest that some companies see the moratorium as a shield to continue controversial practices, such as using AI tools to monitor employees or inflate prices through algorithmic models. Others argue it sets a worrying precedent for federal overreach into areas traditionally governed at the state level.
At the heart of the opposition is a desire for flexibility. Lawmakers and advocacy groups believe that the pace of technological change demands a dynamic, locally responsive approach to regulation—something a decade-long federal ban would obstruct.
Uncertain Future in the Senate
Though the bill passed narrowly in the House, its fate in the Senate is far from certain. Senators must now determine whether non-budgetary elements like the AI moratorium can remain in a bill structured around budget reconciliation, a process typically reserved for spending and tax measures.
Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee voiced concern about the potential impact on her state’s recently enacted laws protecting musicians and performers from unauthorized AI-generated content. “We cannot stand idly by while vital protections are shelved in favor of political expediency,” she said.
Other senators, both Democratic and Republican, have also signaled hesitancy, suggesting the measure could be amended or removed entirely. If the Senate makes changes, the bill would return to the House for reconsideration, potentially stalling or even derailing the broader legislative package.
Federal vs. State Control: The Broader Debate
At stake is more than just one provision in one bill—it’s a defining battle over how the United States will govern artificial intelligence in the years ahead. Proponents of federal standardization argue it would prevent the emergence of confusing, inconsistent rules that stifle innovation and complicate compliance for tech firms. Critics counter that this efficiency comes at the cost of accountability and adaptability.
As AI continues to transform industries from finance to education, the question of who controls the regulatory reins becomes increasingly important. For now, state lawmakers are making it clear that they won’t cede that authority without a fight.
