A push to ban state regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) for 10 years is setting off a debate among Republicans, further complicating its path toward passage in President Trump’s tax and spending bill.
The AI provision has divided Republicans into two camps: one touting the party’s traditional support of states’ rights and another concerned with overbearing regulation.
As the Senate works out its changes to the larger tax and spending package, an increasing number of Republicans from both chambers are coming out against the AI provision, which calls for a 10-year moratorium on state laws regulating AI models and systems.
Republicans opposed to the measure differ in their opinions of AI and how beneficial it could be, but they share concerns with the federal government stifling the ability of states to set their rules for it.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), one of the most vocal GOP critics of Trump’s broader bill, said Tuesday he is “not a real fan of the federal government” and is against the provision.
“I personally don’t think we should be setting a federal standard right now and prohibiting the states from doing what we should be doing in a federated republic. Let the states experiment,” Johnson told The Hill.
While Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has expressed concerns about the economic impact of AI, he said he is willing to introduce an amendment to eliminate the provision during the Senate’s marathon vote-a-rama if it is not taken out earlier.
“I’m only for AI if it’s good for the people,” he told reporters, citing AI’s potential disruptive impact on the job market. “I think we’ve got to come up with a way to put people first.”
Even some House Republicans who already voted to pass the bill in the lower chamber are speaking out against the provision.
A group of hard-line conservatives argued in a letter last week to Senate Republicans that Congress is still “actively investigating” AI and “does not fully understand the implications” of the technology.
This was shortly after Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) confirmed she would be a “no” on the bill if it comes back to the House with the provision included.
“I am 100 percent opposed, and I will not vote for any bill that destroys federalism and takes away states’ rights, ability to regulate and make laws when it regards humans and AI,” the Georgia Republican told reporters.
Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) declined to say whether he would support the moratorium but noted he “likes states’ rights.”
Several state leaders and lawmakers are also pushing back.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, rejected concerns the moratorium could encroach on states’ rights, pointing to the Commerce Clause in the Constitution.
The clause grants the federal government broad power to set rules for commercial activities that inherently involve business among states.
“The Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce between the states, and AI is quintessentially commerce between the states,” Cruz said, adding that “having a patchwork of 50 different standards” would be devastating to the development of AI.
The battle comes just more than a month after OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and other tech leaders appeared before Cruz’s committee and voiced their opposition to state-by-state regulation of AI.
Altman, whose company makes the popular ChatGPT AI chatbot, told Cruz a state-by-state approach to AI regulation would be “burdensome” and pushed for a “light touch” framework.
While the House version proposed a blanket ban on all states from regulating AI and enforcing existing and future laws around it, the Senate is going for a watered-down approach.
Cruz and the Senate Commerce Committee released a version of bill text earlier this month, altering the language of the AI provision.
Under their proposal, states would be prohibited from regulating AI if they want access to federal funding from the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program.
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), the former co-chair of the Senate AI Caucus, suggested tying the provision to BEAD funding might make it more likely to adhere to Byrd rule, a procedural rule in the Senate prohibiting “extraneous matters” from being included in reconciliation packages.
Republicans are using the budget reconciliation process to advance Trump’s legislative agenda while averting the Senate filibuster.
But the Byrd rule prevents them from including provisions that do not “change outlays or revenues.”
“It may be a more Byrd-bathable approach,” Rounds told The Hill, referring to the process in which the Senate parliamentarian checks the bill for adherence to the Byrd Rule.
“I support getting the moratorium in place so that Congress has the opportunity.”
“Then, we’ve got the hard work of actually doing appropriate legislation to lay out the path forward,” he added.
Cruz was expected to consult with the Senate parliamentarian about the provision but did not say Tuesday whether he had done so already.
“That process is still ongoing,” he said.
Some Republicans are still not convinced it will pass the Byrd rule.
“Doubtful it [the provision] survives,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) wrote on the social platform X on Monday when asked for his stance on the moratorium.
And even if it does, it will still be a steep sell for some lawmakers.
“I can also tell every single Republican in the House and the Senate; I don’t care what you change it to. If you are destroying state rights, I’m out,” Greene said.
When reached for comment on the AI bill this week, the office of Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) pointed The Hill to her comments during a hearing last month, when she voiced her opposition to the moratorium without a federal framework.
“Tennessee passed the ELVIS Act, which is like our first generation of the No Fakes Act, and we certainly know that in Tennessee we need those protections,” Blackburn said last month. “And until we pass something that is federally preemptive, we can’t call for a moratorium on those things.”
Blackburn is one of the Senate’s fiercest critics of “Big Tech” platforms, and her No Fakes Act would create federal protections for artists’ voice, likeness and image from nonconsensual AI-generated deepfakes.
Republican leaders can afford to lose only three GOP votes for the package, which is not expected to have any support from Democrats.
Democratic Sen. Ed Markey (Mass.) has emerged as one of the chamber’s most vocal critics of the moratorium. He is threatening to force a vote on an amendment against the provision if it is still part of the reconciliation package when it hits the Senate floor.
“I’m glad that some Republicans are raising their voice,” he told The Hill of the GOP critics. ”But do they have enough political strength to have that provision be removed?”
