Efforts to block U.S. states from creating their own artificial intelligence standards have once again faltered, marking another huge loss for politicians and industry groups seeking a national ban on state-level supervision. The newest campaign sought to implant the rule into the yearly defence authorisation bill, but bipartisan resistance pushed Senate leaders to reject the proposal, according to sources.
The concept is not dead, according to House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, but it will be relocated to “other places” for future legislative consideration. President Trump, who has frequently supported restricting state power over burgeoning AI governance, has praised the effort. Despite this endorsement, the move to connect the item to the defence bill received immediate condemnation from both Republican and Democratic members who considered it an inappropriate and irrelevant addition to national security legislation.
This is not the first time the move has failed. Earlier in the year, GOP lawmakers attempted to introduce a 10-year moratorium on state-level AI regulations through Trump’s tax and spending package. Bipartisan opposition also caused that effort to fail, demonstrating how divisive the topic has grown across party lines.
Tech titans in Silicon Valley have long favoured such federal preemption legislation, arguing that letting states write their own standards creates a confusing “patchwork” of AI restrictions. Major firms have cautioned that inconsistent state frameworks could hinder innovation, complicate compliance, and increase operational expenses for AI developers.
Critics counter that preventing states from regulating AI will allow corporations to have unrestrained influence. Most state AI initiatives now focus on core concerns such as algorithmic transparency, data privacy, bias prevention, accountability, and consumer protection. In the absence of comprehensive federal AI rules, opponents argue that stripping states of regulatory authority would essentially leave the public without meaningful oversight while giving Big Tech unparalleled latitude to dictate the course of AI development.
Echoing Trump’s earlier remarks that the ban should be filed as a stand-alone law, Scalise has openly conceded that the defence bill was not the right location to pursue the idea. Meanwhile, a leaked draft executive order shows that the administration has pondered unilateral action to curtail state AI legislation, but those plans appear to be on hold for the time being.
As the debate continues, the struggle between federal authority, state autonomy, and corporate interests is shaping the future of AI governance in the United States. The latest failure underscores how politically sensitive the issue has become — and how difficult it will be to create a unified national AI framework anytime soon.
The future of AI governance in the US is being shaped by the ongoing dispute between corporate interests, state autonomy, and federal power. The most recent setback highlights how politically delicate the matter has become and how challenging it would be to develop a cohesive national AI framework anytime soon.