The United States is edging toward a decision on artificial intelligence oversight, but the central dispute is not only about what AI rules should say. The sharper question is who gets to write them: Congress and federal agencies, or the states that have already started moving.
That tension has turned AI regulation into a federal-state fight. Tech companies and pro-AI political groups want a national standard, or at least a pause on state-level laws. State lawmakers and their allies argue that, without a real federal consumer safety framework, states should not be stripped of their ability to respond.
States moved while Washington waited
In the absence of a meaningful federal AI standard focused on consumer safety, states have introduced dozens of bills aimed at AI-related harms. The source article points to California’s AI safety bill SB-53 and Texas’ Responsible AI Governance Act, which prohibits intentional misuse of AI systems.
That state activity has become the foundation of the current clash. Supporters of state laws say local governments are acting because the federal government has not yet delivered a broad AI framework. Industry groups say the result is a growing set of different requirements that could be difficult for companies to follow.
As of November 2025, 38 states have adopted more than 100 AI-related laws this year. Those laws mainly target deepfakes, transparency and disclosure, and government use of AI. A recent study cited in the source found that 69% of those laws impose no requirements on AI developers at all.
That detail matters because it complicates the claim that every state law directly burdens AI labs. Some rules appear to focus on use cases, disclosure, or public-sector deployment rather than imposing new obligations on developers themselves.
The push to block state AI laws
Efforts to limit state authority have accelerated through two channels: the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and a leaked White House executive order draft. House lawmakers are reportedly considering language in the NDAA that would prevent states from regulating AI.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) told Punchbowl News that the House had considered placing such language in the defense bill. Politico reported that Congress was working to finalize a deal on the defense bill before Thanksgiving. According to a source familiar with the matter cited by TechCrunch, negotiations have focused on narrowing the scope in a way that could preserve state authority over areas such as kids’ safety and transparency.
The leaked White House EO draft points in the same direction. It would create an “AI Litigation Task Force” to challenge state AI laws in court, direct agencies to evaluate state laws considered “onerous,” and push the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission toward national standards that override state rules.
The draft would also give David Sacks, Trump’s AI and crypto czar and co-founder of VC firm Craft Ventures, co-lead authority on creating a uniform legal framework. That would put him in a major role over AI policy that goes beyond the typical role of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and its head, Michael Kratsios.
Industry’s patchwork argument
The tech industry’s core argument is straightforward: many different state laws could make compliance harder and slow AI development. Josh Vlasto, co-founder of pro-AI PAC Leading the Future, put the concern in competitive terms.
“It’s going to slow us in the race against China,” Josh Vlasto, co-founder of pro-AI PAC Leading the Future, told TechCrunch.
Vlasto also argued that the tech sector cannot drive innovation if laws keep emerging from people who may not have technical expertise. That view matches the position David Sacks has publicly supported: blocking state regulation, keeping federal oversight limited, and favoring industry self-regulation to “maximize growth.”
Several pro-AI super PACs have appeared in recent months and are putting hundreds of millions of dollars into local and state elections to oppose candidates who support AI regulation. Leading the Future, backed by Andreessen Horowitz, OpenAI president Greg Brockman, Perplexity, and Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, has raised more than $100 million.
This week, Leading the Future launched a $10 million campaign urging Congress to craft a national AI policy that overrides state laws. Nathan Leamer, executive director of Build American AI, the PAC’s advocacy arm, confirmed that the group supports preemption even without AI-specific federal consumer protections in place.
Leamer’s position is that existing laws, including those addressing fraud or product liability, are enough to handle AI harms. That approach is more reactive: allow companies to move quickly, then address problems later in court.
Why opponents say preemption is risky
The opposing argument is not necessarily against a national AI policy. Alex Bores, a New York Assembly member running for Congress, supports a federal framework. But he argues that states can move faster when new risks emerge.
Bores sponsored the RAISE Act, which requires large AI labs to have safety plans to prevent critical harms. He told TechCrunch that he believes in AI’s power and sees reasonable regulation as part of making AI trustworthy in the marketplace.
“Ultimately, the AI that’s going to win in the marketplace is going to be trustworthy AI, and often the marketplace undervalues or puts poor short-term incentives on investing in safety.”
Members of Congress have also pushed back against sweeping preemption. Congress voted overwhelmingly against a similar moratorium earlier this year. More than 200 lawmakers signed an open letter opposing preemption in the NDAA, arguing that “states serve as laboratories of democracies” and must “retain the flexibility to confront new digital challenges as they arise.”
Nearly 40 state attorneys general also sent an open letter opposing a state AI regulation ban. Their concern reflects a broader fear: if state laws are blocked before federal protections exist, consumers could be left with fewer safeguards while AI companies continue operating with limited oversight.
Cybersecurity expert Bruce Schneier and data scientist Nathan E. Sanders, authors of Rewiring Democracy: How AI Will Transform Our Politics, Government, and Citizenship, argue that the patchwork complaint is overstated. They note that AI companies already comply with tougher EU regulations and that many industries operate under different state laws.
What a federal standard could include
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) and the bipartisan House AI Task Force are preparing a package of federal AI bills covering fraud, healthcare, transparency, child safety, and catastrophic risk. A large bill like that could take months, if not years, to become law.
Lieu is drafting an over 200-page mega-bill that he hopes to introduce in December. It includes issues such as fraud penalties, deepfake protections, whistleblower protections, compute resources for academia, and mandatory testing and disclosure for large language model companies.
The testing and disclosure provision would require AI labs to test their models and publish results, something most do voluntarily now. Lieu has not introduced the bill yet, but he said it does not direct federal agencies to review AI models directly.
That makes it different from a bill introduced by Senators Josh Hawley (R-MS) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CN), which would require a government-run evaluation program for advanced AI systems before they deployed. Lieu acknowledged that his proposal would not be as strict, but said he is trying to write something that could become law.
“My goal is to get something into law this term,” Lieu said, noting that House Majority Leader Scalise is openly hostile to AI regulation. “I’m not writing a bill that I’d have if I were king. I’m trying to write a bill that could pass a Republican-controlled House, a Republican-controlled Senate, and a Republican-controlled White House.”
That is the practical problem at the heart of the AI regulation fight. A federal standard may be the long-term goal for many sides, but the current preemption push could arrive before that standard exists. The result is a high-stakes policy fight over whether states should keep acting now, or step back while Washington tries to catch up.