Senator Ted Cruz has introduced a very daring placeholder measure. It would bar states from regulating AI for at least a decade. This “AI moratorium” was actually worked into the budget reconciliation bill, unofficially nicknamed the “Big Beautiful Bill.” The proposal has sparked an unprecedented backlash among Republican lawmakers, industry bigwigs, and consumer advocates. It features a great discussion of the complexities of AI governance in the United States.
The proposed “AI moratorium” would specifically bar states from passing their own AI regulations for the next decade. In June, Cruz made some significant amendments of his own to his initiative. He conditioned compliance with the moratorium on states’ ability to receive money from the $42 billion Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program. On Wednesday, Cruz grew that revision further still. Second, he changed the requirement to apply only to the new $500 million in BEAD funding that was added to the legislation.
Critics of the “AI moratorium” come from all parts of the political spectrum, including Democrats as well as Republicans of all stripes who are raising their alarms. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) was one of the most prominent critics. She explains that the states need to be able to protect their citizens and creative industries from harms posed by AI technologies. Yet Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) sounds these same alarm bells over states’ rights. He is engaging in intensive private lobbying with key Democrats to strip the moratorium entirely from the bill.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) loading her gun to shoot the whole appropriations bill. She says she won’t vote for it if the “AI moratorium” provision remains. This discord illuminates the ongoing struggle Congress must grapple with as they attempt to navigate the complexities of emerging technology and its impact on state sovereignty.
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has emerged as one of the most high profile critics of the “AI moratorium.” He characterizes it as a “blunt instrument” that ignores the nuances of AI regulation. He pointed out that a ten-year ban would hamstring states’ ability to deal with the quickly changing technologies.
“A 10-year moratorium is far too blunt an instrument.” – Dario Amodei
Chris Lehane, OpenAI’s chief global affairs officer, rejected the idea as well, warning about the unintended consequences of such a moratorium. He noted that the existing regulatory framework is failing. He cautioned that a piecemeal approach could make it more difficult to advance AI safety and governance.
“The current patchwork approach to regulating AI isn’t working and will continue to worsen if we stay on this path.” – Chris Lehane
Lehane further articulated that, as the U.S. races to establish dominance in AI against global competitors like China, maintaining a cohesive regulatory framework will be crucial.
The debate on the moratorium has been further clouded by conflicting views from industry titans about how fast AI is progressing. Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, underscored how fast these AI technologies have developed. He cautioned that regulators would be hard pressed for political will to stay ahead in developing needed regulation.
“If the federal government wants to pass strong AI safety legislation, and then preempt the states’ ability to do that, I’d be the first to be very excited about that.” – Nathan Calvin
Altman specifically underscored the need for holistic regulations. He cautioned that a long legislative process might lead to such regulations being out of date by the time they are eventually adopted.
“I worry that if…we kick off a three-year process to write something that’s very detailed and covers a lot of cases, the technology will just move very quickly.” – Sam Altman
Polling shows most Americans support stronger regulation over AI technologies. Already, debate over Cruz’s proposal has begun to get very contentious. An increasingly stark battle lines form between those pushing for more federal government oversight and those calling for states’ rights to regulate AI on their own.
Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) was particularly outspoken against Cruz’s amendments to the reconciliation language. During the hearing, Senator Peters asserted that his amendments leverage BEAD funding to create a ten-year moratorium on spurious state-level AI legislation. She pointed out that this would force states receiving federal funds to choose between expanding broadband access or safeguarding consumers against potential harms associated with AI technologies.
“Forces states receiving BEAD funding to choose between expanding broadband or protecting consumers from AI harms for ten years.” – Sen. Maria Cantwell
The conversations around the “AI moratorium” are ongoing as legislators and legislators-in-the-making discuss and consider its implications. Although supporters claim that a one-size-fits-all approach to regulation is necessary, opponents warn that doing so would quash state-level efforts to protect consumers.
Emily Peterson-Cassin, an advocate for consumer rights, noted that the argument for a consistent regulatory framework has been prevalent throughout consumer advocacy history. The more conversations travel down this path, the easier it is to identify sweet spots. This will be key to informing smart governance that keeps pace with this dynamic space.
