/>iEarlier we wrote about a controversial AI moratorium provision in the "One Big Beautiful Bill" — the massive budget reconciliation measure that narrowly passed the US House of Representatives on May 22 and is currently under consideration in the Senate. The AI moratorium provision would impose a 10-year ban on state-level artificial intelligence (AI) regulations and would also preempt over 1,000 active AI-related bills in state capitals and dozens that have already been signed into law. Proponents of the moratorium argue that a patchwork of state rules "strangles innovation and creates compliance chaos."
The moratorium, however, faces strong objections from Senate lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, as well as a majority of state attorneys general. The detractors include Republican critics (despite their party's role in advancing the bill), including Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), who has vocally opposed the ban, emphasizing the need for state protections from AI impersonations. She asserted a bipartisan-shared sentiment: "until we pass something that is federally preemptive, we can’t call for a moratorium." Joining Sen. Blackburn in GOP opposition is Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), who said he would “do everything I can” to kill the AI moratorium and referred to the clause as “constitutional kryptonite.” He argued that states should be able to "try out different regimes that they think will work for their state" and voiced the view that "sensible oversight that will protect people’s liberties" is needed.
Several Republican senators have expressed support for the measure, including Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who compared it to the internet tax moratorium of the 1990s, and Senator Bernie Moreno (R-OH), who offered that "AI doesn't understand state borders."
All 214 House Democrats voted against the appropriations bill, and several levied barbs at the AI moratorium clause. They included Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA), who derided the ban as a "slap in the face to American consumers," and Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA), who joined other voices in criticizing the moratorium for its duration and for not offering a federal standard in its place. An unexpected (and new) opponent is Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who has voiced her “adamant” opposition to the measure.
As we noted in our earlier post, the moratorium's opposition extends to statewide officeholders. A bipartisan group of 40 state attorneys general has expressed concern, labeling the measure “sweeping and wholly destructive of reasonable state efforts to prevent known harms associated with AI.” The group includes South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, a Republican, who called the ban “federal overreach,” and Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, who echoed the concern voiced by Sen. Blackburn and others that "Congress's inability to enact comprehensive legislation enshrining AI protections leaves millions of Americans … vulnerable."
The fate of the AI moratorium remains uncertain, as it faces significant challenges from the Senate's Byrd Rule. This rule prohibits "extraneous" policy riders (those unrelated to federal spending or revenues) in reconciliation bills, which would seem to apply to the AI clause.This, along with the growing opposition to the moratorium, suggests that organizations should prepare for continued state-level AI regulation rather than assuming federal preemption. The ban's fate will likely be determined within the next few weeks.
"Until we pass something that is federally preemptive, we can’t call for a moratorium." Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
