In a near-unanimous vote, the U.S. Senate removed a provision from a major federal tax and spending bill that would have prevented states from regulating artificial intelligence for up to ten years.
The proposed moratorium, originally introduced to encourage a unified national approach to AI policy, was ultimately struck down 99 to 1 following bipartisan concern over its potential to limit state-level protections and slow public accountability efforts.
The provision, which tied access to federal broadband and AI infrastructure funding to states’ agreement to halt AI regulation, was viewed by critics as a preemptive restriction that could leave a regulatory gap while Congress continues to debate national AI standards.
The Senate’s decision maintains the status quo, allowing states to continue shaping AI policy independently as federal efforts remain under development.
Why It Matters: The Senate’s action reflects the broader challenge of regulating fast-moving technologies like AI in a fragmented political environment. With no comprehensive federal AI law in place, state governments have taken the lead in crafting protections and oversight mechanisms. The rejection of the moratorium affirms their role in responding to the practical and ethical implications of AI in sectors such as education, housing, law enforcement, and online safety.
- What the Moratorium Proposed: The provision sought to bar states from passing new laws to regulate AI for a period of ten years, later revised to five. The language was tied to federal funding, meaning states that opted not to follow the moratorium could lose access to infrastructure grants designed to support broadband expansion and AI deployment.
- Reasons for Opposition: A wide range of political and civic leaders argued that the moratorium would hinder states from addressing urgent concerns related to AI. These include synthetic media such as deepfakes, algorithmic decision-making in housing and employment, and tools that may affect children’s safety online. State lawmakers also raised concerns about democratic accountability, noting that a national freeze could bypass local priorities.
- Arguments for the Moratorium: Supporters, including some technology companies and policymakers, emphasized the benefits of a single national regulatory framework. They cautioned that inconsistent state laws could complicate compliance, raise costs, and weaken the global competitiveness of U.S.-based AI companies. They also argued that federal legislation, once passed, would provide clearer and more stable guidance.
- Public and Institutional Response: In recent months, over 260 state legislators, 40 attorneys general, and several advocacy organizations expressed formal opposition to the moratorium. Letters from a wide range of groups called the measure overly broad and warned that it could prevent states from responding to emerging harms. These views were echoed by families affected by AI-related online harms and by civil society organizations focused on consumer rights and digital ethics.
- Implications for Future AI Policy: With the moratorium removed, states retain the ability to enact and enforce AI-related laws. The outcome suggests that any future attempt to preempt state action will face significant scrutiny unless it is paired with a robust federal regulatory framework. Meanwhile, efforts continue in both chambers of Congress to craft national legislation on AI safety, privacy, and accountability, though no comprehensive bill has yet passed.
Senators Reject 10-Year Ban on State-Level AI Regulation, In Blow to Big Tech – TIME
Senate removes state AI regulation ban opposed by Sen. Maria Cantwell – Yahoo! News
Trusted insights for technology leaders
Our readers are CIOs, CTOs, and senior IT executives who rely on The National CIO Review for smart, curated takes on the trends shaping the enterprise, from GenAI to cybersecurity and beyond.
Subscribe to our 4x a week newsletter to keep up with the insights that matter.
