Attorneys General Fight for States’ Rights to Regulate AI

3 hours ago7 min read

In a significant escalation of the ongoing battle over technological governance, dozens of state attorneys general have mounted a formidable defense against a concerted effort by the Trump administration to curtail states' rights to regulate artificial intelligence. This clash, reminiscent of historical federalism struggles over issues like environmental protection and consumer safety, centers on a multi-pronged federal initiative to preempt local authority.The core of the conflict is embedded within a new defense funding authorization bill currently under Congressional consideration, which contains language explicitly designed to prevent states from enforcing their own AI rules—a move that critics argue is profoundly premature given the absence of any comprehensive federal regulatory framework. This legislative maneuver follows a previously failed attempt to impose a decade-long moratorium on state-level AI legislation, a proposal so drastic it was widely seen as an attempt to freeze innovation in public policy alongside technological advancement.The situation intensified last week with the leak of a draft executive order, which would instruct federal agencies to actively penalize states that enact or enforce their own AI regulations, a tactic described by New York Assemblymember Alex Bores, author of the state's passed but not-yet-signed RAISE Act, as a form of legal harassment intended to 'harass states into submission. ' Leading the charge for state autonomy is New York Attorney General Letitia James, who authored a letter signed by officials from 36 states arguing that 'broad preemption of state protections is particularly ill-advised because constantly evolving emerging technologies, like AI, require agile regulatory responses that can protect our citizens.' This perspective champions the 'laboratory of democracy' model, where states can experiment with different regulatory approaches—from addressing AI chatbots that harm children's mental health to combating deepfake-enabled financial scams—allowing the nation to collectively learn from successes and failures. This is not merely a theoretical debate; the practical implications are vast and immediate.As the attorneys general note, AI applications are rapidly proliferating in healthcare, hiring, housing, law enforcement, transportation, and banking, domains where the consequences of algorithmic bias, privacy violations, and safety failures can be catastrophic. The federal government's inertia on establishing model transparency requirements, cybersecurity standards, or energy use guidelines for massive data centers creates a regulatory vacuum that states are attempting to fill.Arati Prabhakar, a top tech adviser in the Biden administration, has rightly labeled the push for preemption without a federal regime in place as 'ludicrous,' highlighting the paradoxical nature of banning local action on a technology that Congress itself has failed to govern. The states' position is fundamentally about maintaining regulatory agility; a top-down, one-size-fits-all federal preemption would inevitably be too slow and too rigid to adapt to the breakneck pace of AI development, potentially leaving citizens unprotected from novel harms for years.This struggle echoes Isaac Asimov's foundational debates on robotics, where the need for adaptable, context-aware rules was paramount. The attorneys general emphasize tangible dangers, from chatbots fostering inappropriate relationships and discussions of self-harm with minors to sophisticated deepfake scams that undermine financial and personal security.Imposing a moratorium or broad preemption, they contend, would not only tie their hands but would actively put the public behind the technological curve, preventing the agile, iterative responses that emerging technologies demand. The outcome of this power struggle will set a critical precedent, determining whether AI governance in the United States will be a dynamic, responsive process or a centralized, stagnant one, with profound consequences for innovation, consumer protection, and the very balance of power between state and federal governments.

#state attorneys general

#federal preemption

#AI regulation

#states rights

#defense funding bill

#editorial picks news