In New York, a contentious effort to prevent states from imposing regulations on artificial intelligence for the next ten years appeared poised for success as the GOP-backed tax cut and spending bill, strongly supported by President Donald Trump, advanced through the U.S. Senate. However, as the bill approached a final vote, mounting opposition from various conservative groups, including Republican governors, lawmakers, think tanks, and social organizations, began to shake its support. One vocal critic, conservative activist Mike Davis, utilized right-wing podcaster Steve Bannon’s platform to encourage viewers to contact their senators and oppose what he termed “AI amnesty” favoring “trillion-dollar Big Tech monopolists.”
Davis revealed he had direct communication with Trump, advising him to maintain a neutral stance on the issue despite what Davis described as considerable pressure from White House AI czar David Sacks, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, and others. Conservatives rallying to eliminate the provision faced opposition from within the party, as many Republicans viewed the legislative moratorium as vital for the U.S. to stay competitive with China in the AI race. This division marked a significant split in the GOP over whether states should continue to regulate new technologies or if interference should be minimized.
Ultimately, the proponents of maintaining state regulatory power triumphed, demonstrating the significant clout of a Republican faction increasingly wary of Big Tech. They argue that states must have the ability to safeguard their citizens from potential technological threats, whether they pertain to AI, social media, or other emerging tech. “Tension in the conservative movement is palpable,” noted Adam Thierer of the R Street Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank. Thierer, who initially proposed the AI moratorium, highlighted the strong opposition to Big Tech among Republicans.
Numerous conservative groups, including the Heritage Foundation, children’s safety advocates, and various Republican state officials, voiced their opposition to the AI moratorium. Democrats, tech watchdogs, and certain tech firms also stood against it. Sensing a pivotal moment, Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, who opposed the AI provision, joined forces with Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington to propose its outright removal. By the following morning, the provision had been struck down in a dramatic 99-1 vote.
The rapid collapse of a measure initially backed by key figures within the House, Senate, and White House came as a disappointment to some conservatives who believed it offered China a competitive edge in AI. Ryan Fournier, chairman of Students for Trump and chief marketing officer for Uncensored AI, supported the moratorium, arguing it “prevents states like California and New York from surrendering our future to Communist China.” He acknowledged the diverse opinions among Republicans but emphasized the need for a uniform set of rules to facilitate AI innovation.
Tech companies, industry groups, venture capitalists, and several figures from the Trump administration had expressed support for the provision, arguing that the absence of federal standards would lead to a complex web of state-level regulations, hindering technological advancement. Commerce Secretary Lutnick and AI czar Sacks publicly endorsed the proposal, emphasizing its importance in securing American leadership in critical tech fields.
While some conservatives warned against stifling innovation, others were apprehensive about giving tech companies undue freedom without adequate oversight. Many who opposed the blanket moratorium highlighted the significance of preserving states’ rights, though advocates argued that AI issues often transcend state boundaries and require federal governance. Minnesota Republican lawmaker Eric Lucero cited that numerous industries already navigate varied regulations across state and local levels.
There is consensus within the conservative movement on the necessity to outperform China in AI, acknowledged Daniel Cochrane from the Heritage Foundation. However, opinions differ on the appropriate strategy. Without federal legislation, states are deemed best equipped to shield their residents from potential AI-related risks. Representing this perspective, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene cautioned against giving AI unchecked liberties and restricting states from safeguarding individuals.
The call for federal regulations persists as Texas state Senator Angela Paxton communicated with Cruz and Sen. John Cornyn, urging them to repeal the moratorium. These conservatives recognize the potential benefit of establishing federal guidelines to streamline AI oversight and mediate factional disputes within the party. However, with the moratorium removed and the GOP holding only slim majorities in Congress, the prospect of securing consensus on comprehensive AI regulations remains uncertain.
Paxton, in communication, expressed a desire for limited federal AI legislation with clear boundaries concerning national security and interstate commerce, while allowing states the autonomy to tackle specific concerns impacting their inhabitants. “When dealing with technology as potent and potentially hazardous as AI, we must avoid impeding state-level initiatives aimed at consumer and child protection,” she emphasized.