The U.S. House of Representatives is considering legislation that would prevent states from enforcing regulations on artificial intelligence (AI) for a decade. This proposal, part of a budget bill, states that no state or political subdivision may impose any laws concerning AI models, systems, or automated decision-making for ten years. The amendment must be passed by both Congress chambers and signed by President Trump to become law. Advocates for federal oversight argue it will prevent the confusing patchwork of state laws that could impede technological advancement, especially as the U.S. and China compete for leadership in AI technology.
The rapid expansion of generative AI since late 2022 has intensified the need for uniform regulations. Industry leaders like Alexandr Wang of Scale AI emphasized the necessity for a singular federal standard to streamline development and preemptively address state-level discrepancies. However, such a long moratorium on state regulations could leave consumers less protected when it comes to AI’s growing influence on daily life, which raises concerns from various experts like Anjana Susarla from Michigan State University, who advocates for multi-level approaches to regulation.
Currently, some states have taken proactive steps in regulating AI, with Colorado and California enacting laws aimed at consumer protection and other specific issues, such as deepfakes. However, state regulations are inconsistent; over 550 proposals aimed at AI have been introduced across state legislatures in 2025 alone, demonstrating the wide-ranging interests and approaches states are employing. The disparity has prompted calls for a coherent regulatory framework at the federal level as legislators express urgency before states move too far ahead in their own regulatory paths.
While state regulations exist, many have yet to be enforced, indicating that a moratorium might not significantly alter the status quo. Instead, it could dissuade state lawmakers from crafting new regulations in the interim. As Cobun Zweifel-Keegan notes, existing laws against unfair practices would still govern AI systems, suggesting that the absence of state-specific regulations might push consumer protection issues into litigation or hands of state attorneys general, who would operate under broader legal frameworks.
Nonetheless, industry leaders have expressed concerns about burdensome state regulations potentially stifling innovation. OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman indicated during a Senate hearing that an EU-style regulatory environment would be detrimental to progress. Advocacy groups have countered by asserting that limiting state regulation could worsen the risks associated with AI, including privacy infringements and potential discrimination. The debate revolves around finding a balance between promoting technological innovation and ensuring consumer protection against the adverse effects of AI misuse.
As the House prepares to vote on the proposed legislation, opposition is mounting from various fronts. House Democrats view the moratorium as detrimental to consumer rights, while Republican lawmakers believe it could be overly restrictive on innovation. A coalition of state attorneys general has also expressed concern that the absence of a regulatory framework leaves consumers vulnerable to the harms of AI. With divergent opinions on the solution, the outcome of the proposed moratorium could have lasting implications for both the future of AI and consumer protection in the U.S.
