According to The Verge, House Republicans are reviving their effort to block state AI regulations by potentially adding language to the National Defense Authorization Act. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise told Punchbowl News he’s considering this approach after a previous five-year moratorium on state AI laws failed dramatically this summer when 99 out of 100 senators voted against it. President Donald Trump amplified the push on Truth Social, urging Congress to create “one Federal Standard instead of a patchwork of 50 State Regulatory Regimes” and warning that China could catch up in the AI race without it. The NDAA strategy is common for must-pass legislation, with more details expected before Thanksgiving and a vote likely in December. Both red and blue states have already adopted AI-related laws that could be nullified if Congress passes preemption language.
The State AI Regulation Battle
Here’s the thing about this fight – it’s not really about whether AI should be regulated. It’s about who gets to regulate it. States have been moving aggressively on AI legislation, with everything from bias testing requirements to transparency rules popping up across the country. And lawmakers are worried that the preemption language could be so broad it might accidentally wipe out other tech regulations, including kids’ online safety laws. That’s what killed the last attempt – a proposed 10-year moratorium that spooked pretty much everyone in the Senate.
Innovation vs Regulation Tension
The tech industry, through groups like NetChoice, argues that 50 different state regulatory regimes would create chaos for AI developers. They’re not wrong – imagine trying to build a national AI product while complying with conflicting rules in California, Texas, and New York. But states counter that they’re filling a vacuum left by federal inaction. Basically, while Congress has been talking about AI regulation for years, states have actually been passing laws. Now the question is whether the federal government will swoop in and say “never mind, we’ll handle this.”
The Political Maneuvering
Tacking this onto the NDAA is classic Washington gamesmanship. The defense bill is considered must-pass legislation, so lawmakers often use it as a vehicle for unrelated policies that might not survive on their own. But this approach has risks. The previous moratorium failed spectacularly, and it’s not clear what compromise language could satisfy both sides. Will they shorten the timeframe? Narrow the scope? Or is this just political theater knowing it probably won’t pass but looks good for certain constituencies?
What Comes Next
We should see the actual language before Thanksgiving, which will tell us how serious this effort really is. If they’re proposing another multi-year moratorium, it’s probably dead on arrival. But if they craft something more targeted that addresses specific concerns about conflicting state laws without wiping out everything, it might have a chance. The clock is ticking though – with the NDAA vote expected in December, there’s not much time for the kind of negotiation that would be needed to get 60 votes in the Senate. So we’re either looking at another failed attempt or a last-minute compromise that nobody really loves but everyone can live with.
