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

Arguments for

Filling a federal gap

Supporters say states need authority to act when federal oversight is missing, stalled, or weaker than the risks require. They present state safeguards as a backstop to protect residents from harms ranging from catastrophic misuse to child and consumer harms until meaningful national protections exist.

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
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
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
Absent a strong federal law, states should retain full authority to legislate.

Anthropic · Jun 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

Protecting local residents

Proponents argue states have direct responsibilities for public safety and consumer protection and therefore must be able to respond to harms in their own communities. They cite risks affecting children, workers, families, elections, mental health care, and other state-level concerns, and say states need power to hold companies accountable.

States must be able to protect their own residents from harm, hold tech companies accountable, and ensure that AI is safe and trustworthy.

Jina John · Jun 4, 2026 · full quote
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 and tie the hands of lawmakers a…

State Lawmakers Letter: GAAIA State AI Law Preemption · Jun 16, 2026 · full quote
It's one thing if we're fighting China and you're developing your model, but once you start selling sexualized chatbots to kids in my state, now I have a problem with that, and I'm going to get involved there, and the Supreme Court is going to back me up on that.

Spencer Cox · Feb 19, 2026 · 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
It’s incumbent on state legislators to protect the welfare of our young people. We should employ policy measures that take the onus off K-12 students to protect themselves from predatory use of A.I. chatbots and generative deepfakes.

Chris Pielli · Mar 19, 2026 · full quote

States as laboratories

Another argument is that states can experiment with regulation, standard-setting, audits, and other governance tools, generating models that other states and Congress can later adopt. In this view, state variation is also a source of learning and can help shape a broader national direction.

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
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
First, the tug of war between states and the federal government will continue. While states made significant strides in 2025 to address AI, federal policymakers were instead focused on preempting those efforts. Despite failing to do so twice, proponents of preemption will undoubt…

Cody Venzke · Jan 6, 2026 · full quote
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

Preemption creates a ceiling

Supporters of state authority argue broad preemption would wipe out stronger state safeguards without replacing them with equally protective federal rules. They warn that locking states out of transparency, evaluation, and accountability measures could leave a regulatory vacuum and give AI companies too much freedom.

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
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
In today's lawless, Wild West artificial intelligence environment, states have been leading the charge to implement safeguards addressing serious risks ranging from algorithmic bias to data privacy and consumer protection. But the Trump White House aims to kill state AI laws with…

Don Beyer · 2026 · full quote
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
Today, the White House released its AI framework which broadly blocks state AI laws and lacks key consumer protections around AI models and agent safety. [...] Preemption only makes sense if federal law effectively replaces what states have built with a standard that meets higher…

Josh Gottheimer · 2026 · full quote

Arguments against

One national rulebook

Opponents say AI needs clear, uniform nationwide safety and transparency rules rather than different state standards. They argue a single federal framework would avoid conflicting obligations and ensure protections are not limited to only some states.

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
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
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
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

Patchwork hurts innovation

A common objection is that fifty different state regimes would raise compliance costs and uncertainty for companies operating across state lines, with smaller firms and startups especially exposed. Opponents tie that burden to slower innovation and a weaker U.S. position in the global AI race.

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
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
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
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
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

State rules may misfire

Some critics argue that state laws can impose subjective, ideological, or overly prescriptive requirements before common standards and technical guardrails are established. They prefer more deliberate federal rulemaking to avoid mandates that alter model outputs or hamper beneficial AI uses.

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
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
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

Middle ground

Federal floor, state flexibility

Several quotes support national baseline rules on areas such as security, privacy, civil rights, transparency, or deployment, while still preserving state authority to go further. In this approach, federal law sets a floor rather than a ceiling, and states keep room to address implementation and local issues.

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
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
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 only

Another middle position accepts only limited, issue-by-issue preemption or safe harbors tied to specific risks and best practices. These quotes reject broad preemption and say state law should be displaced only when a federal standard clearly matches or exceeds what states have built.

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
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
A national AI standard should protect at least as much as it preempts, and states across the country have already enacted laws that do far more for Americans on issues like child safety and consumer protections than this proposal.

Brendan Steinhauser · Jun 4, 2026 · full quote
Today, the White House released its AI framework which broadly blocks state AI laws and lacks key consumer protections around AI models and agent safety. [...] Preemption only makes sense if federal law effectively replaces what states have built with a standard that meets higher…

Josh Gottheimer · 2026 · full quote

Federal lead, state roles

Some participants distinguish between domains: they say the federal government is well-positioned to lead on frontier safety, while states can still lead on aligned frameworks, procurement, deployment, or voluntary standards. This view keeps a meaningful state role without assigning every AI safety question primarily to the states.

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
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
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…

Office of Governor Gavin Newsom · Mar 30, 2026 · full quote
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 proud to partner with Asm. Baue…

Jerry McNerney · Jun 17, 2026 · full quote

Insights

Both sides call for AI safety, transparency, and accountability; the main disagreement is whether those goals are better served by state flexibility or uniform national rules.
Many supportive quotes explicitly condition state authority on weak, stalled, or absent federal action, while several nuanced quotes say a federal law could set a floor or lead on some issues without eliminating stricter state action.
Supporters often focus on concrete local harms such as child safety, hiring discrimination, deepfakes, public safety, and resource use, whereas opponents often focus on interstate compliance, startups, and national competitiveness.
Several pro-state quotes present state laws as templates or experiments that Congress can learn from, while opponents describe the same interstate variation as a harmful patchwork.
Even some quotes favoring federal leadership do not endorse broad preemption, instead proposing narrow preemption, safe harbors, or a division between frontier-model oversight and deployment or use rules.

The argument turns less on whether AI needs guardrails than on who should write them and how much variation is tolerable. Supporters of state authority emphasize immediate protection, local accountability, and policy experimentation, especially when federal action is absent or weaker. Opponents emphasize nationwide consistency, lower compliance burdens, and a stronger national innovation strategy, while several nuanced positions call for federal baselines or narrow preemption instead of either full state autonomy or total federal displacement.

Cast your vote:

Results (106 votes):

Total (106 votes)

For 79 (75%) Abstain 0 (0%) Against 27 (25%)

For (79)

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 9h 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 25d 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 1d 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 17d 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 23d 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 24d 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 21d 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 21d 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 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo 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 23d 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 18h 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 24d 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 24d 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 2d 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 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
US civil liberties advocacy organization

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

The federal government must not grant tech giants a blank check to deploy these technologies without the oversight of states.
AI Verified source (Jun 4, 2026)

added 2d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Nicholas Garcia
Senior Policy Counsel at Public Knowledge, working on technology policy and AI governance.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

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...
more AI Verified source (Jun 4, 2026)

added 24d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Jina John
Senior Policy Counsel for AI, Privacy and Technology at the ACLU.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

States must be able to protect their own residents from harm, hold tech companies accountable, and ensure that AI is safe and trustworthy.
AI Verified source (Jun 4, 2026)

added 24d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate

Abstain (0)

Against (26)

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 11d 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 1mo 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 25d 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 24d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Scott Franklin
U.S. Representative from Florida; member of the House Appropriations Committee

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes Against and says:

"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 inn...
more AI Verified source (Jun 4, 2026)

added 1mo 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

Mandate big AI companies spend 30% of compute on AI safety

Mandate reporting of AI training runs above 10²⁶ FLOPs to a designated national or international authority

Pausing AI at human-genius level to solve alignment is safer than either racing to superintelligence or halting entirely

Mandate 72-hour reporting of critical AI safety incidents to a national authority

[🇺🇸 Congress, Oct 2025] Requiring age verification and content safeguards for AI chatbots to protect minors

Back