URGENT UPDATE: The battle over AI regulation heats up as Big Tech seeks immunity from state oversight in a move that could reshape the technology landscape. New reports confirm that an executive order drafted by the Trump administration aims to impose a ten-year moratorium on state-level regulations concerning artificial intelligence, affecting consumer protections and industry accountability.
This initiative, which surfaced in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), has sparked intense debates in Congress. While a bipartisan coalition led by Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Tim Sheehy (R-MT) advocates for military equipment repairs to save taxpayer money, Big Tech’s push for regulatory immunity underscores a growing concern over corporate influence in government.
As the NDAA progresses, the tech industry’s desire for an unregulated environment has intensified. The draft executive order, leaked earlier today, threatens to strip states of their power to regulate AI, a move critics say would leave consumers vulnerable to potential abuses.
“This could create a regulatory free-for-all that endangers public safety,”
warned a legal expert.
The draft executive order proposes establishing an AI Litigation Task Force at the Department of Justice, tasked with suing states that attempt to impose AI regulations. This controversial approach relies on the “dormant commerce clause,” which asserts that states cannot regulate actions that affect interstate commerce. By restricting state regulations, the Trump administration seeks to favor tech giants, potentially jeopardizing safety laws like New York’s RAISE Act aimed at ensuring safer AI practices.
Moreover, the executive order would leverage federal funding conditions to punish states that attempt to regulate AI. Agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are directed to adopt policies that prioritize corporate interests over consumer safety. This strategy raises alarms among advocates for responsible AI development, who argue that it could stifle innovation and accountability.
The implications of this executive order extend beyond AI. Analysts warn that a broad interpretation of what constitutes “AI” could inhibit state efforts to regulate any technology using algorithms, leaving many industries unmonitored. As corporate lobbying intensifies, the balance of power may tip further in favor of industry stakeholders.
Critics, including the co-author of the RAISE Act, Assemblymember Alex Bores, express concerns about the political motivations behind this push. Bores stated,
“When they say they will spend millions against Alex because he might regulate Big Tech, I just forward that to my constituents.”
The growing political influence of tech firms—evidenced by substantial funding from venture capitalists like Andreessen Horowitz—highlights the urgent need for regulatory frameworks that prioritize public welfare.
As this situation develops, all eyes are on Congress and state legislatures. The potential for the Trump administration to bypass legislative checks raises questions about democratic accountability. The ongoing negotiations around the NDAA will be critical in determining whether states retain their ability to regulate AI effectively.
The stakes are high, not only for tech companies but also for ordinary consumers who rely on safe and responsible technology. With the implications of the draft executive order looming, industry leaders and lawmakers must navigate this contentious landscape carefully. As discussions continue, the outcome will significantly impact the future of AI regulation in the United States.
Stay tuned for the latest updates on this developing story as the tech industry battles for regulatory immunity while lawmakers strive to protect public interests.
