House GOP seeks 10-year freeze on state AI regulations

A proposed congressional moratorium on state-level AI regulation signals a significant shift in how artificial intelligence might be governed in the United States. The House Republicans’ push for a 10-year ban on state AI regulations represents a dramatic centralization of technology policy that could fundamentally alter the regulatory landscape for AI companies, with potentially far-reaching consequences for consumer protection, innovation, and federal-state relations in the rapidly evolving AI sector.

The big picture: House Republicans are advancing a 10-year moratorium on state-level AI regulation as part of the federal budget reconciliation bill.

• The measure, voted forward by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday, would prevent states and local governments from enforcing any laws regulating AI models, systems, or automated decision systems for a decade.
• If enacted, existing state measures like California’s upcoming 2026 law requiring AI developers to publish their training data documentation would become unenforceable.

What they’re saying: Democratic lawmakers have condemned the moratorium as benefiting technology companies at the expense of consumer protections.

• Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Ranking Member of the Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee, called the ban “a giant gift to Big Tech” that would allow AI companies to “ignore consumer privacy protections, let deepfakes spread and allow companies to profile and deceive consumers.”
• Republican supporters, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), defended the ban by comparing it to the successful “Internet tax moratorium” from 1998, which he credits with enabling extraordinary growth in e-commerce.

The rationale: Republicans argue that the moratorium would allow for more cohesive federal regulatory development without competing state frameworks.

• Supporters maintain that allowing regulations across 50 different states would create excessive challenges for developing effective federal rules.
• Cruz highlighted historical precedent, noting the positive economic outcomes of the late 1990s internet tax moratorium.

What’s next: The moratorium faces additional hurdles before becoming law.

• If the provision advances to the Senate as part of the budget reconciliation bill, it could still be removed if deemed extraneous to the budget process.
• Notably, some supporters of the federal moratorium, including Senator Cruz, represent states that have already begun addressing AI regulation independently.