The fate of artificial intelligence regulation in the United States hangs in limbo as a controversial proposal to impose a 10-year moratorium on state-level AI laws moves to the Senate after narrow House approval. The provision, embedded within the 2025 budget reconciliation package, cleared the House by a single vote (215-214) in May and recently survived a critical procedural hurdle when the Senate parliamentarian ruled it eligible for reconciliation[3][5][13]. This legislative maneuver would block states from enacting or enforcing new AI regulations until 2035 while allocating $500 million for federal AI modernization[3][7].
Legislative Mechanics and Definitions
The moratorium’s scope hinges on expansive definitions that diverge from international standards:
– Artificial Intelligence Systems: Any data system using AI to influence real/virtual environments[3].
– Automated Decision Systems: Computational processes replacing human judgment via scores or classifications[3][5].
Republican proponents argue these definitions ensure uniform standards, while critics warn they create loopholes exempting many AI applications from oversight[9][14]. The Senate version, championed by Ted Cruz (R-TX), replaces the House’s outright ban with financial penalties—states regulating AI would forfeit broadband funding[5][16].
Clashing Viewpoints
Pro-Moratorium Arguments:
Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA) contends a “patchwork of state laws” stifles startups competing with China: “Congress must lead with uniform policy for technologies crossing state lines”[13][16]. Tech consortiums like the American Edge Project echo this, warning that disparate regulations could cede AI dominance to geopolitical rivals[16].
Opposition Coalition:
Civil rights groups, 40 state attorneys general, and bipartisan lawmakers decry the moratorium as dangerous deregulation. Damon Hewitt (Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights) warns it enables unchecked discrimination: “Companies will discriminate through technology in ways illegal elsewhere”[11]. The ACLU highlights risks to housing, hiring, and loan approvals where AI already exhibits racial/gender biases[11][14].
State-Level Implications
Seven states have enacted AI safeguards since 2023:
1. California’s accountability laws require impact assessments for high-risk AI[10].
2. Tennessee protects musicians from AI voice replication[9].
3. Texas investigates healthcare AI inaccuracies[9].
All would be nullified under the moratorium. State legislators argue this violates federalism principles, with the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) stating: “States innovate where Congress deadlocks”[10][11].
Industry and Innovation Concerns
While companies like IBM support federal preemption, AI ethicist Merve Hickok counters that the moratorium “serves Big Tech’s business models, not public safety”[9]. Startups face conflicting pressures: Some fear compliance costs, while others like Encode Justice note targeted bills (e.g., California’s SB 1047) exempt small firms[13].
Constitutional and Enforcement Questions
Legal scholars identify ambiguities:
– Can states pursue violations *after* the moratorium expires?[3]
– Does it block enforcement of general consumer laws against AI?[5]
Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) warns the language could invalidate child safety and environmental laws: “States must retain rights to protect citizens when AI impacts local resources”[11][13].
Global Context
The EU’s binding AI Act contrasts with the U.S. approach. Marc Rotenberg (Center for AI and Digital Policy) notes: “Europe regulates AI risks; America deregulates them,” potentially isolating U.S. firms globally[9][14].
Path Forward
The provision faces slim odds in the Senate, where Markey and civil society groups lobby Democrats to remove it. If included, President Trump is expected to sign the reconciliation package by July[13][16]. Failure could accelerate state regulations, deepening the patchwork Republicans seek to avoid[10][16].
Why This Matters
This battle transcends AI policy, testing federalism in the algorithm age. By centralizing authority in a gridlocked Congress, the moratorium risks leaving citizens unprotected amid AI’s rapid deployment in healthcare, finance, and law enforcement. As Alondra Nelson (former White House tech policy director) argues: “Truly innovative technology must be just and fair”—a principle hanging in the balance[11][14].
*Background Note: The House-passed AI Accountability Act (HR 3369), which mandates NTIA studies on AI trustworthiness, remains stalled in committee[2][7].*
Sources
-
https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/artificial-intelligence-2025-legislation
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3369
https://www.dlapiper.com/en-us/insights/publications/ai-outlook/2025/ten-year-moratorium-on-ai
https://www.nytco.com/press/journalisms-essential-value/
https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/news-insights/senate-gatekeeper-allows-congress-to-pursue-state-ai-law-pause.html
https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/ACCC+commissioned+report+-+The+impact+of+digital+platforms+on+news+and+journalistic+content
+Centre+for+Media+Transition+(2).pdf
https://www.softwareimprovementgroup.com/us-ai-legislation-overview/
https://uncf.org/the-latest/writing-for-the-times-is-a-career-in-journalism-right-for-you
https://www.techpolicy.press/proposed-moratorium-on-us-state-ai-laws-is-shortsighted-and-illconceived/
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/states-are-legislating-ai-but-a-moratorium-could-stall-their-progress/
https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-markey-hosts-roundtable-on-republicans-proposed-state-ai-regulation-moratorium
https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/9e7cfa23-c651-4f50-9ad1-ab12827da72a/content
https://time.com/7297580/ai-moratorium-senate-big-beautiful-bill/
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-reacts-to-updated-omb-guidance-for-ai-use-by-federal-agencies
https://files.znu.edu.ua/files/Bibliobooks/Kushynova/0034570.pdf
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/06/27/ted-cruz-ai-moratorium-reconciliation-republicans-congress-trump/
