States should retain the right to set stricter AI safety standards than the federal government

ai-safety policy regulations ai-regulation ai-policy us-congress gov

Share this with your representatives, journalists and friends

Key insights

Both sides describe AI as powerful and consequential, but they disagree over whether nationwide uniformity or continued state action is the safer near-term response.
Many supporters of state authority also call for strong federal standards, framing the key question as whether national law should supplement state safeguards or displace them.
A recurring fault line is timing: supporters focus on what states should do while federal action is absent or incomplete, whereas opponents focus on the long-run costs of divergent state regimes.
Supporters frequently emphasize children, workers, consumers, public safety, and local resource impacts, while opponents emphasize compliance burdens, interstate operations, startups, and global competitiveness.
The quotes include support for continued state authority from state officials, labor groups, civil-liberties groups, and some AI company representatives, while several federal officials and trade associations argue for preemption.

Arguments for

Act while federal rules lag

Proponents say states cannot wait for Washington when AI is already affecting children, workers, and communities. Until Congress or federal authorities establish meaningful oversight, they argue states have a responsibility to put guardrails, transparency, and public protections in place now.

As AI systems become more powerful and the federal government is unwilling to step in, states have a responsibility to protect our people from the dangers of AI while still harnessing the unique potential of the technology. People want protections from the risks of AI and Illinoi…

JB Pritzker · Jul 6, 2026 · full quote
Frontier model AI systems have the potential to be used for many good things. However, due to their massive computing power, they also could cause catastrophic events, such as cyberattacks or the system evading control by developers or users. In the absence of federal oversight o…

Kwame Raoul · Jul 6, 2026 · full quote
We can no longer wait for Washington, D.C. to do the right thing and enact protections over these digital tools that give parents more control—it is time for the states to take action. This bill strikes a good balance between protecting children, ensuring workers are being treate…

Ned Lamont · Jun 2, 2026 · full quote
In the absence of federal action, California has an opportunity to set a strong standard for youth AI safety.

Ann O'Leary · Aug 31, 2026 · full quote
Embracing the amazing possibilities of AI can’t come at the cost of leaving Americans vulnerable to its profound risks, which is exactly what President Trump’s Executive Order tries to do [...] Discouraging states from enacting common-sense regulation that protects people from po…

Brian Schatz · Mar 27, 2026 · full quote
We need meaningful safeguards on AI to address the harms they cause. That is why we cannot tell states to stand down from protecting their kids, especially when we need Congress to put standards in place. [...] I think we need to be very loud and clear that the federal government…

Maria Cantwell · Jan 15, 2026 · full quote

State experimentation and models

Supporters argue states can serve as laboratories for AI governance by testing audits, transparency rules, and other safeguards that build public trust. They say state frameworks can set precedents, inform federal policymaking, and give other states and Congress models to build on.

State laws will not all be identical, and we look forward to working with policymakers across the country to ensure they strengthen safety while maximizing AI’s economic benefits.

Chris Lehane · Jul 15, 2026 · full quote
States need time to discern the risks and opportunities of this constantly evolving technology, and they must remain free to engage in an iterative process that could help inform and strengthen our federal response.

Nat Purser · Mar 24, 2026 · full quote
States can and should experiment with regulation, standard-setting, public-private partnerships, public goals–conditioned funding, and other efforts to protect their citizens from AI’s downsides and ensure they capture its upsides.

Alondra Nelson · 2026 · full quote
SB 315 passed with overwhelming bi-partisan support because lawmakers recognize the same basic truth: the public demands safety and transparency from the AI companies shaping their future. Illinois has created a new template for responsible AI governance that we expect other stat…

Steve Wimmer · Jul 6, 2026 · full quote
This represents an important consumer safety check on a growing industry that has intimate access to our personal information. I’m proud of the work the sponsors have done to set a standard for safety, responsibility and transparency that I hope serves as a national model.

Don Harmon · Jul 6, 2026 · full quote
As these models grow more powerful, this kind of enforceable accountability matters more than ever. Illinois lawmakers have set a new standard, and we hope other states and the federal government build on their dedication to AI safety.

Cesar Fernandez · May 27, 2026 · full quote

Preemption creates a regulatory vacuum

Many backers of state authority say broad preemption would not be a true replacement unless federal law offered equally strong protections. In their view, blocking state action now would leave families, workers, and consumers exposed while reducing transparency, evaluation, and accountability for AI companies.

The federal government must not grant tech giants a blank check to deploy these technologies without the oversight of states.

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) · Jun 4, 2026 · full quote
The sweeping preemption clause in this bill goes far beyond replacing state laws that might conflict or duplicate this federal framework. It locks states out of even simple, light-touch transparency and evaluation regulations for other kinds of harms or risks. We cannot advance A…

Nicholas Garcia · Jun 4, 2026 · full quote
Any legislative framework that includes federal preemption without meaningful guardrails isn’t serious about protecting Americans. It’s just another handout to Big Tech at the expense of our kids, our communities, and our jobs.

Michael Kleinman · Mar 22, 2026 · full quote
This bill takes the current floor on state AI legislation and turns it into a federal ceiling, preventing state lawmakers from addressing emerging AI harms in an era of fast-moving technology. Over the past two decades, state lawmakers have proven to be a backstop for tech accoun…

Brad Carson · Jun 4, 2026 · full quote
Preemption would effectively mean no U.S. regulation of AI at all, with the narrow exception of rules to deal with nonconsensual intimate deepfakes, because there are no national rules in place. [...] To be clear, states aren't keeping up with the risks that Big Tech companies ar…

Robert Weissman · 2026 · full quote

Local tailoring and police powers

Proponents contend states need room to address public safety, consumer protection, procurement, and other issues shaped by local industries, infrastructure, and community impacts. They argue states should be able to tailor responses as new harms emerge and to go beyond national baselines when local circumstances require it.

States possess police powers over public safety and consumer protection. There is a presumption against preemption, unless the U.S. Congress has made its intention clear and manifest.

David Beier · Jan 12, 2026 · full quote
States need the ability to respond to new harms as they emerge, and Congress recognized that when it rejected the moratorium provision. Wisconsin has demonstrated that this can be done responsibly, practically, and in a bipartisan way.

Tony Evers · 2026 · full quote
While the federal government dismantles contracting standards and removes basic protections for Americans, Governor Gavin Newsom today issued an executive order to explore stronger AI standards for state procurement — ensuring that companies demonstrate responsible policies and m…

Government of California · Mar 30, 2026 · full quote
This proposal lacks meaningful guardrails and ignores the real impacts AI is already having on jobs, communities, and local resources - from rising energy demand and skyrocketing costs to increased water use. It also takes the wrong approach by attempting to preempt state and loc…

Valerie Foushee · Mar 20, 2026 · full quote
Stripping states of jurisdiction to regulate AI is a subsidy to Big Tech and will prevent states from protecting against online censorship of political speech, predatory applications that target children, violations of intellectual property rights and data center intrusions on po…

Ron DeSantis · 2025 · full quote
The Constitution reserves a lot of power to the states in particular areas [like] public safety, which can pertain to issues that AI touches like deepfakes, election interference, and regulating how technology shows up in mental health care.

Deborah Ross · 2026 · full quote

Arguments against

Avoid a patchwork of rules

Opponents argue that fifty different state standards would create conflicting obligations, higher compliance costs, and uncertainty for companies operating across state lines. They warn that smaller firms and startups could be hit especially hard by having to answer to many regulators using different definitions and timelines.

The FRONTIER Act is a targeted bill with clear, uniform transparency, and safety standards, instead of a fifty-state patchwork. I'm glad to support this bipartisan effort so that Congress acts before this technology outruns us.

Scott Peters · Jul 23, 2026 · full quote
At the same time, some states and localities are moving ahead independently with their own AI regulations. New York, California, Colorado, and others have begun implementing policies intended to address privacy, discrimination, and other workforce concerns. However, some have rai…

Ryan Mackenzie · Apr 15, 2026 · full quote
Congress has an opportunity to foster this innovation by adopting a regulatory approach that is careful, deliberate, and grounded in the realities of wage and hour compliance. That means resisting the temptation to impose prescriptive mandates that would stifle the development an…

Matthew Gizzo · Apr 15, 2026 · full quote
Creating a patchwork of AI laws where 50 different states all have different goals is ultimately going to hurt little tech and startups more than anyone else.

Michael Kratsios · 2026 · full quote
If you have to report to 50 different state regulators at 50 different times with 50 different definitions, it's extremely onerous. And it's going to slow down innovation, and it's going to hinder our progress in the AI race.

David Sacks · 2025 · full quote
America should lead the world in artificial intelligence, not regulate ourselves into falling behind China through a patchwork of fifty different state laws.

Erin Houchin · Jun 4, 2026 · full quote

Protect innovation and competitiveness

Another argument is that a uniform federal approach is necessary to keep innovation in the United States and maintain an edge over foreign rivals. From this perspective, fragmented state regulation could slow deployment, weaken job growth, and undermine national leadership in AI.

Importantly, this framework can succeed only if it is applied uniformly across the United States. A patchwork of conflicting state laws would undermine American innovation and our ability to lead in the global AI race.

The White House · Mar 20, 2026 · full quote
Instead of pushing AI amnesty, President Trump rightfully called on Congress to pass federal standards and protections to solve the patchwork of state laws that has hindered AI innovation. Now, Congress must answer his call to establish one federal rulebook for AI to protect chil…

Marsha Blackburn · Mar 18, 2026 · full quote
“Like it or not, artificial intelligence is here to stay. The U.S. can choose to lead the world in this transformative technology or we can regulate it into the hands of Communist China. If we care about American jobs, national security and staying ahead of our foreign adversarie…

Gabe Evans · Feb 19, 2026 · full quote
The United States cannot remain competitive if developers, businesses, and users face fifty different legal regimes governing a general-purpose technology. [...] Congress should take this recommendation seriously and establish a light-touch national framework that preserves room …

Daniel Castro · 2026 · full quote
Preempting state AI laws would prevent regulatory fragmentation and enable the innovation America needs to compete in the global AI race, while allowing existing laws and regulations that are flexible enough to govern AI effectively to continue to do so.

Ash Johnson · Jun 10, 2026 · full quote
“There’s no doubt that AI is rapidly transforming how we live and work. The question now is whether America develops the rules of the road and leads the future of this extremely powerful tool, or if we let adversaries like China set the terms,” Fedorchak said. “It cannot be the l…

Julie Fedorchak · Mar 20, 2026 · full quote

Federal leadership is better suited

Critics of state-by-state regulation say AI does not stop at state borders and that Congress or federal institutions should set one nationwide framework for safety and transparency. They present a national standard as the clearest way to apply consistent rules rather than leaving core standards to a handful of states.

If safety is the priority, such a national standard is the best policy approach to ensure the US continues to lead in innovation and not be undermined by a patchwork of regulations.

OpenAI · Jul 15, 2026 · full quote
Congress has the responsibility to establish a national framework for AI and any attempt by Donald Trump to create laws through executive order is a sham. It is Congress' responsibility to check this overreach of the presidency. Pleased to work with my friend, Congressman Beyer, …

Ted Lieu · Mar 20, 2026 · full quote
"Artificial intelligence is already transforming our economy, our national security and the way Americans live and work," said Congressman Scott Franklin (FL-18). " Congress has a responsibility to establish clear rules of the road that encourage innovation while ensuring this te…

Scott Franklin · Jun 4, 2026 · full quote
We obviously strongly, strongly believe AI doesn’t stop at state borders and AI policies shouldn’t either. So we really need explicit, federal preemption of conflicting state laws — one national standard.

Amy Bos · Mar 3, 2026 · full quote
Rather than allow protections to exist in only a handful of states or force innovators to navigate dozens of different legal regimes, our framework would establish one national standard.

Jay Obernolte · 2026 · full quote

State standards may be unclear

Some opponents argue state laws can impose subjective, poorly defined, or ideologically driven requirements without established national certifications or guardrails. They question whether standalone state frameworks deliver clear safety benefits commensurate with the added burdens they create.

Some state laws seek to impose their own patchwork of regulations on AI. Colorado’s Artificial Intelligence Act, for instance, appears to coerce companies into altering the output of their AI models to comply with and advance the state’s ideological objectives.

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) · Jul 7, 2026 · full quote
We remain concerned that Illinois would effectively be requiring private actors to make highly subjective determinations requiring AI safety compliance without established national standards, certifications, or clear regulatory guardrails.

Ninia Linero · May 20, 2026 · full quote
[The bill] would create a standalone state framework that increases compliance burdens without delivering clear safety benefits.

Tom Mann · Feb 10, 2026 · full quote
I'm disappointed [the Big Beautiful Bill] didn't include a proposed moratorium on U.S. state-level AI regulation. While there is a role for AI regulation, it is when the technology is new and poorly understood that lobbyists are most likely to succeed at pushing through anti-comp…

Andrew Ng · 2026 · full quote

Middle ground

Federal floor, state room above

Several quotes envision national baseline protections on issues such as security, privacy, civil rights, or transparency, while preserving state authority to address deployment and local harms. In this view, federal law should be a floor rather than a ceiling, with states free to go further where needed.

The federal government should establish baseline national standards for areas such as security, privacy, civil rights, transparency, and interstate consistency. States should retain flexibility to address implementation, public sector use, and issues unique to their citizens and …

Robert Fulk · Jul 2026 · full quote
There have been efforts, however, to prevent states from enacting new protections and to nullify existing state safeguards—leaving workers vulnerable when employers deploy discriminatory and exploitative AI systems in the workplace. Any federal legislation should be a floor, not …

Tanya L. Goldman · Feb 3, 2026 · full quote
Congress should instead focus on setting a strong federal floor of protections, while preserving state authority to go further, as needed, in addressing new harms in ways that are tailored to their constituents' needs.

Kansas House of Representatives · 2026 · full quote
Any federal AI law should serve as a floor, not a ceiling, preserving flexibility for states to go further where necessary to protect their residents.

Rob Bonta · 2025 · full quote
Here in New York, we've stepped up, setting a national standard for transparency and accountability for frontier AI models. But states cannot solve this problem alone. The federal government must establish strong national standards that put public safety ahead of the race to deve…

Kathy Hochul · Sep 9, 2026 · full quote
States, meanwhile, would retain full power to govern how AI is deployed and used, from hiring and housing to health care, education, chatbots, and more.

Lori Trahan · Jun 12, 2026 · full quote

Narrow preemption in defined areas

Some participants propose federal preemption only for specific conflicts or clearly federal domains, such as defined frontier or national-security risks. They reject broad preemption and instead favor issue-by-issue rules, aligned state frameworks, or limited safe harbors tied to concrete federal standards.

Outside of areas with a clear national security nexus, namely cybersecurity, CBRNE, and loss of control, states should retain the ability to legislate without federal interference. Unless and until Congress enacts and implements a truly strong federal framework, states should ret…

Iskandar Haykel · Jul 27, 2026 · full quote
Federal preemption of state AI laws should proceed on a narrow, issue-by-issue basis. Broad preemption of a vaguely defined and poorly understood category of state laws would, in all likelihood, be a disaster, for both political and policy reasons.

Charlie Bullock · Jul 8, 2026 · full quote
While we have been very clear that the federal government remains well-positioned to lead on frontier safety because it has the resources, expertise and institutions, we also strongly actually see a position for both Illinois but also California and New York to really lead in adv…

Caitlin Niedermeyer · Jul 7, 2026 · full quote
Companies’ AI models earn federal preemption — a safe harbor from liability under state law for a specific category of risk — if they meet or exceed CAISI’s determination of industry best practices for cybersecurity, human safety, privacy and the like.

Sam Liccardo · May 22, 2026 · full quote

The debate is less about whether AI needs safeguards than about which level of government should lead and under what conditions. Supporters of retained state authority emphasize immediate protection, local tailoring, and experimentation during a period of limited federal oversight, while opponents stress uniformity, lower compliance burdens, and national competitiveness. Several nuanced proposals seek a stronger federal baseline or narrowly tailored preemption without eliminating all state action.

Cast your vote:

Results (121 votes):

Total (121 votes)

For 92 (76%) Abstain 0 (0%) Against 29 (24%)

For (92)

Americans for Responsible Innovation
AI policy advocacy nonprofit

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

ARI has already worked with state lawmakers on a variety of fronts, including to advocate for greater community stewardship of data centers and to defeat federal preemption efforts.
AI Verified source (Sep 10, 2026)

added 9d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Ann O'Leary
Vice President of Global Affairs at OpenAI.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

In the absence of federal action, California has an opportunity to set a strong standard for youth AI safety.
AI Verified source (Aug 31, 2026)

added 14d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Iskandar Haykel
Policy analyst and writer on frontier AI governance at Americans for Responsible Innovation.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Outside of areas with a clear national security nexus, namely cybersecurity, CBRNE, and loss of control, states should retain the ability to legislate without federal interference. Unless and until Congress enacts and implements a truly strong federa...
more AI Verified source (Jul 27, 2026)

added 14d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Karen E. Spilka
President of the Massachusetts Senate.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Today the Senate took action to maintain the Commonwealth’s economic edge while giving Massachusetts residents, families, and businesses the best bet at success.
AI Verified source (Jul 23, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Chris Lehane
OpenAI chief global affairs officer

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

State laws will not all be identical, and we look forward to working with policymakers across the country to ensure they strengthen safety while maximizing AI’s economic benefits.
AI Verified source (Jul 15, 2026)

added 2mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Charlie Bullock
Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Law & AI, advising policymakers on AI governance and legal policy.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Federal preemption of state AI laws should proceed on a narrow, issue-by-issue basis. Broad preemption of a vaguely defined and poorly understood category of state laws would, in all likelihood, be a disaster, for both political and policy reasons.
AI Verified source (Jul 8, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Government of Brazil
National government of Brazil, speaking through its delegation at the UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance in July 2026.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Interoperability should not be confused with regulatory uniformity. The compatibility of governance-free approaches should enable dialogue among different national policy frameworks. It should not restrict the right of states to adopt their own regul...
more AI Verified source (Jul 7, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Rachel Ventura
Illinois State Senator representing the 43rd District; co-sponsor of the Illinois Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

With the rise of Artificial Intelligence in all aspects of our lives, coupled with the lack of oversight, we face a looming crisis. This legislation sets a strong precedent to ensure AI developers abide by important safety standards and transparency ...
more AI Verified source (Jul 7, 2026)

added 2mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Caitlin Niedermeyer
Global Affairs representative at OpenAI, working on artificial intelligence policy and governance.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

While we have been very clear that the federal government remains well-positioned to lead on frontier safety because it has the resources, expertise and institutions, we also strongly actually see a position for both Illinois but also California and ...
more AI Verified source (Jul 7, 2026)

added 2mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Emanuel "Chris" Welch
Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

The advancements we’ve seen in just the past few years show the tremendous potential that new technology has to transform our economy, remove barriers, and create opportunity—but it also raises critical questions about everything from safety, to our ...
more AI Verified source (Jul 6, 2026)

added 2mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Sunny Gandhi
Encode AI political affairs VP

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

SB 315 is the strongest AI safety law in the country. It builds on the frameworks California and New York have already passed and goes one step further by requiring independent audits, so the public doesn’t have to take AI companies at their word. Il...
more AI Verified source (Jul 6, 2026)

added 2mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Nick Beckstead
CEO of the Secure AI Project; advocate for AI safety policy and evaluation standards.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Governor Pritzker and the Illinois legislature are courageously supporting stronger safeguards to oversee powerful AI. Illinois is the first state to mandate independent third-party evaluations of AI safety practices, making its AI law the strongest ...
more AI Verified source (Jul 6, 2026)

added 2mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Mary Edly-Allen
Illinois State Senator (D-Libertyville); lead sponsor of SB 315, a frontier AI safety and transparency bill requiring independent third-party audits of major AI developers

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

This bipartisan law is about putting responsible safeguards in place before a preventable catastrophe occurs. Illinois has an opportunity to lead the nation by setting clear expectations for transparency, accountability and public safety. While artif...
more AI Verified source (Jul 6, 2026)

added 2mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Steve Wimmer
Senior Technical and Policy Advisor at Transparency Coalition; advocates accountable AI governance and state leadership.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

SB 315 passed with overwhelming bi-partisan support because lawmakers recognize the same basic truth: the public demands safety and transparency from the AI companies shaping their future. Illinois has created a new template for responsible AI govern...
more AI Verified source (Jul 6, 2026)

added 2mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Daniel Didech
Illinois State Representative (Democrat); lead House sponsor of SB 315, the Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

The pace of AI development and the capabilities of frontier models are accelerating, and the General Assembly has an obligation to ensure that Illinois residents are protected from catastrophic outcomes. This legislation puts enforceable guardrails i...
more AI Verified source (Jul 6, 2026)

added 2mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Don Harmon
President of the Illinois Senate; backs state AI safety, responsibility, and transparency standards.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

This represents an important consumer safety check on a growing industry that has intimate access to our personal information. I’m proud of the work the sponsors have done to set a standard for safety, responsibility and transparency that I hope serv...
more AI Verified source (Jul 6, 2026)

added 2mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Kwame Raoul
Attorney General of Illinois; supports state AI guardrails and transparency in the absence of federal oversight.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Frontier model AI systems have the potential to be used for many good things. However, due to their massive computing power, they also could cause catastrophic events, such as cyberattacks or the system evading control by developers or users. In the ...
more AI Verified source (Jul 6, 2026)

added 2mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Juliana Stratton
Lieutenant Governor of Illinois; advocates responsible AI safeguards and public accountability.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Artificial intelligence is creating incredible opportunities, but it also brings new risks, especially for young people. Illinois is showing that innovation and accountability can go hand in hand by setting clear expectations that help protect our co...
more AI Verified source (Jul 6, 2026)

added 2mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
JB Pritzker
Governor of Illinois; signed the Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act in 2026.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

As AI systems become more powerful and the federal government is unwilling to step in, states have a responsibility to protect our people from the dangers of AI while still harnessing the unique potential of the technology. People want protections fr...
more AI Verified source (Jul 6, 2026)

added 2mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Robert Fulk
Indiana Secretary of State official discussing AI governance and state regulatory authority.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

The federal government should establish baseline national standards for areas such as security, privacy, civil rights, transparency, and interstate consistency. States should retain flexibility to address implementation, public sector use, and issues...
more AI Verified source (Jul 2026)

added 2mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Xavier de Souza Briggs
Senior Fellow at Brookings Metro, researching economic mobility, cities, and AI's workforce impacts.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Building on human-in-command rules, for now state by state and mainly as safety-driven technology policy that doubles as a brake on job automation, to advance “pro-worker AI” steers more broadly and ambitiously.
AI Verified source (Jun 29, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
California State Assembly member

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Good AI policy requires independent verification of safety. AB 1405 will take a significant step in creating the ecosystem for independent verification to become a reality. By working in concert with Sen. McNerney we are building a framework where Ca...
more AI Verified source (Jun 17, 2026)

added 2mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Jerry McNerney
California state senator

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

AI has tremendous potential to improve our lives, but without sufficient guardrails, it also poses significant risks. Under SB 813, California will become the first state to create voluntary standards for the responsible development of AI. I’m also p...
more AI Verified source (Jun 17, 2026)

added 2mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
State Lawmakers Letter: GAAIA State AI Law Preemption
Bipartisan June 2026 collective letter by U.S. state lawmakers opposing federal preemption of state AI laws.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

As state lawmakers, we take seriously our responsibility to safeguard our constituents from AI harms to children, workers, artists and creators, families, and consumers. GAAIA’s broad preemption provisions would freeze a sweeping set of state laws an...
more AI Verified source (Jun 16, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Lori Trahan
U.S. representative from Massachusetts

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

States, meanwhile, would retain full power to govern how AI is deployed and used, from hiring and housing to health care, education, chatbots, and more.
AI Verified source (Jun 12, 2026)

added 3mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate

Loading more opinions...

Abstain (0)

Loading more opinions...

Against (28)

Scott Peters
U.S. Representative from California's 50th congressional district; co-sponsor of the FRONTIER Act.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes Against and says:

The FRONTIER Act is a targeted bill with clear, uniform transparency, and safety standards, instead of a fifty-state patchwork. I'm glad to support this bipartisan effort so that Congress acts before this technology outruns us.
AI Verified source (Jul 23, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
US consumer protection agency

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes Against and says:

Some state laws seek to impose their own patchwork of regulations on AI. Colorado’s Artificial Intelligence Act, for instance, appears to coerce companies into altering the output of their AI models to comply with and advance the state’s ideological ...
more AI Verified source (Jul 7, 2026)

added 2mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Andrew N. Ferguson
Chairman of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes Against and says:

Colorado’s Artificial Intelligence Act, for instance, appears to coerce companies into altering the output of their AI models to comply with and advance the state’s ideological objectives.
AI Verified source (Jul 1, 2026)

added 2mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Andrew R. Garbarino
U.S. Representative from New York and Chair of the House Homeland Security Committee.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes Against and says:

I think federal pre-emption is something that should be part of it.
AI Verified source (Jun 28, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Ash Johnson
Senior Policy Manager at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, focusing on technology policy.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes Against and says:

Preempting state AI laws would prevent regulatory fragmentation and enable the innovation America needs to compete in the global AI race, while allowing existing laws and regulations that are flexible enough to govern AI effectively to continue to do...
more AI Verified source (Jun 10, 2026)

added 2mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate

Loading more opinions...

More h/ai-safety votes

AGI could make governments subordinate to the companies that develop it

Ban open source AI models capable of creating WMDs

Require AI systems above a capability threshold to be interpretable

AI poses an existential threat to humanity

Establish an international AI incident reporting system

Back