Washington is quietly moving to nationalize control over artificial intelligence, proposing broad preemption of state laws that would strip local governments of the ability to govern technologies that touch everyday life. One of the leading proposals, the American Artificial Intelligence Leadership and Uniformity Act, includes a five-year moratorium that would bar states from enforcing laws that regulate AI systems entering interstate commerce.
Earlier in the year, the House pushed a more sweeping approach with a budget provision that would have blocked states from regulating AI for a decade, a measure that alarmed civil liberties advocates and state lawmakers alike. That strict preemption faced resistance in the Senate, and a proposed 10-year ban was removed after bipartisan pushback during floor proceedings.
If those congressional fights weren’t enough, the White House has reportedly prepared an executive order to create a federal apparatus to challenge state AI laws, including a DOJ-led litigation task force and mechanisms to withhold federal funds from noncompliant states. Centralizing this much power inside the federal bureaucracy would hand unelected officials and agency lawyers the ability to decide what rules apply to every American.
State legislatures have not been idle; dozens of states have already moved to address AI’s threats to privacy, children, and the fairness of critical decisions like housing and hiring. National groups representing state lawmakers and civil rights organizations have warned that sweeping federal preemption would erase those on-the-ground protections and deny victims meaningful remedies.
Conservatives should be skeptical of concentrated regulatory power for two reasons: it stifles the very innovation we want and it concentrates decision-making in coastal elites and bureaucrats with little accountability. The states are the laboratories where practical, tailored solutions are forged; surrendering that trade to a one-size-fits-all federal regime is a gift to special interests and a slap in the face to federalism.
Big tech has loudly backed preemption, arguing that a patchwork of state laws would hamper deployment and growth, but when private companies push for federal carve-outs they’re asking for immunity rather than accountability. That’s exactly why cautious conservatives should insist on transparency and legal remedies, not blanket protections that let bad actors hide behind centralized rules.
The proposed federal playbook is also dangerously legalistic: using commerce clause arguments and federal funding levers to bully states into compliance would politicize grant programs and invite years of litigation. Creating a permanent federal gatekeeper to decide which state laws “interfere” with commerce hands rule-making power to judges and career officials instead of voters and their representatives.
We can have strong, common-sense federal standards that protect safety without obliterating the states’ role in protecting children, consumers, and civil rights. States have already passed targeted laws—like efforts to criminalize AI-generated child exploitation and to demand transparency from algorithmic systems—and those local choices deserve respect, not preemption.
Patriots who love liberty should oppose any rush to hand AI rulemaking to a distant elite. Fight for a federal framework that preserves innovation and national security while honoring state innovation, victim remedies, and the constitutional balance that has made America prosperous and free.
