A bipartisan coalition of 40 state attorneys general, including representatives from California, New York, and Ohio, has publicly opposed a proposed federal measure that would impose a 10-year moratorium on state and local regulation of artificial intelligence (AI). This provision is part of President Donald Trump's tax cut bill and aims to centralize AI oversight at the federal level.

The attorneys general argue that such a moratorium would undermine states' abilities to protect consumers from high-risk AI applications. California Attorney General Rob Bonta emphasized the necessity for states to maintain regulatory authority, especially as AI technologies continue to evolve. The proposed ban has garnered support from House Republicans and major tech companies like Google, who advocate for a unified federal standard to bolster national AI leadership. However, opponents warn that a regulatory freeze without corresponding federal action could leave consumers vulnerable. The measure is currently under consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives and must pass through the Senate and budget reconciliation processes to be enacted.

The 10-year moratorium on state and local AI regulation is embedded within President Trump's comprehensive tax cut bill, often referred to as the "One, Big, Beautiful Bill." This bill aims to extend the 2017 tax cuts and includes various provisions affecting federal spending and regulatory authority. The inclusion of the AI regulation moratorium has been particularly contentious, as it seeks to preempt state-level initiatives addressing AI-related concerns.

The coalition of 40 state attorneys general, representing a bipartisan effort, has expressed strong opposition to the federal preemption of state AI regulations. They argue that states have been at the forefront of addressing AI-related issues, such as deepfakes, discrimination, and consumer protections. For instance, California has enacted laws criminalizing AI-generated explicit images without consent and banning unauthorized deepfakes in political advertisements. The attorneys general contend that a federal moratorium would strip states of their ability to respond promptly to emerging AI challenges and protect their residents.

Proponents of the moratorium, including House Republicans and major tech companies like Google, argue that a unified federal standard is essential for fostering innovation and maintaining the United States' leadership in AI. They believe that a patchwork of state regulations could hinder technological advancement and create compliance challenges for businesses operating across multiple jurisdictions. However, critics warn that implementing a regulatory freeze without corresponding federal action is irresponsible and leaves consumers vulnerable.

The proposed AI regulation moratorium is currently under consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives. To become law, it must pass through the Senate and survive the budget reconciliation process. The inclusion of such a provision in a budget bill may violate Senate procedural rules, such as the Byrd Rule, which could render its passage unlikely. Key Republicans and Democrats alike have expressed skepticism about the provision's viability, noting the need for a federal framework but questioning this method.

This development follows a series of actions by the Trump administration aimed at reshaping AI policy. In January 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14179, titled "Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence," which revoked previous policies and established a plan to promote AI development. This order reflects the administration's preference for deregulating AI to support innovation over implementing safeguards against potential risks.

The proposed federal moratorium on state AI regulations has significant social and societal implications. By centralizing AI oversight at the federal level, there is a risk of delaying or diluting responses to AI-related issues that disproportionately affect certain communities. State governments have been more agile in addressing concerns such as AI-generated misinformation, privacy violations, and algorithmic bias. Removing their regulatory authority could leave consumers vulnerable to the rapid and often unpredictable evolution of AI technologies.

The ongoing debate between federal and state roles in AI regulation underscores the complex balance between fostering innovation and ensuring consumer protection. As AI technologies continue to evolve, the outcome of this legislative process will have lasting implications for the future of AI oversight in the United States.