Senate Republicans Defend State AI Regulations After House Drops Moratorium
States have a role in regulating AI, several Senate Republicans told us Thursday after House Republicans dropped plans to include an AI moratorium in Congress’ defense spending package (see 2512030038).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Privacy Daily provides accurate coverage of newsworthy developments in data protection legislation, regulation, litigation, and enforcement for privacy professionals responsible for ensuring effective organizational data privacy compliance.
Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas; Susan Collins, R-Maine; Ron Johnson, R-Wis.; and Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., were among those saying they’re reluctant to block AI regulations at the state level in part because of congressional gridlock. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told us congressional negotiations are ongoing, though he noted the White House is taking the lead on the issue.
“I think there’s a better way to address it than a moratorium,” said Cornyn. “The problem is Congress hasn’t passed any federal AI legislation, and ordinarily that would determine whether federal law preempts state law. But I don’t think we should tie the hands of state legislators when it comes to consumer protection and protecting children, for example." Cornyn noted the role of the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (TRAIGA) in protecting children in his state.
“I understand why the industry would prefer a federal law, but the fact is that we’ve yet to act in a comprehensive way,” said Collins. “I know there are some bills at the state legislature in Maine that appear to be reasonable bills, and I’d be reluctant to block their ability to proceed when we haven’t done so, but I haven’t made a final decision” on current moratorium plans.
Johnson told us the Senate’s 99-1 vote in July removing the previous moratorium proposal from the reconciliation package isn’t necessarily indicative of where the Senate stands today. Since that vote, President Donald Trump has publicly backed federal preemption, and the White House has reportedly floated a draft executive order to do so (see 2511200051). Even so, Johnson said a moratorium “probably wouldn’t be a smart thing to do. It’s a complex issue.”
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., the lone no vote in the 99-1 decision, maintains his support for blocking state measures. “I just want to see an AI moratorium, period. I just think it’s bad policy [to have a patchwork of state laws]. I’m the army of one that voted for it back in the summer.”
Congress “will continue negotiating and see where we go,” Cruz added. Asked if the White House should take the lead, he said, “The White House is taking the lead.”
Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., told us he and other Democrats aren’t necessarily opposed to federal preemption, but he opposes preemption without setting any federal standards. If the White House doesn’t want states to regulate through a patchwork, the administration needs to work with Congress on a “reasonable federal standard,” said Lieu, who previously co-chaired the House AI Task Force with Rep. Jay Obernolte, R-Calif., one of the original co-authors of the House’s proposed moratorium.
“I think the idea of a moratorium is a bad idea, but I do think having a national standard that can serve as a floor is a good idea,” said Lummis. “If states want to go farther, they can, but having a national floor makes a lot of sense.”