A proposed 10-year federal ban that would prohibit states from regulating artificial intelligence (AI) has faced strong opposition from a wide coalition of state attorneys general. This contentious clause, included in the tax cut bill promoted by former President Donald Trump, aims to impose a moratorium on state-level AI regulations. However, it has drawn robust bipartisan criticism, with 40 attorneys general nationwide expressing concerns about potential risks to consumer protections and oversight of emerging technologies. The proposed ban seeks to create a uniform federal standard for AI regulation by suspending any new or existing state AI laws for ten years. Supporters of the measure, including House Republicans and major tech companies like Google, argue that a unified approach is critical for effective governance of AI applications. They claim that varying state regulations could lead to a fragmented and confusing legal environment that hampers innovation and undermines the U. S. 's ability to maintain global leadership in AI development. Despite these points, critics argue that completely halting state regulatory authority is premature and hazardous given AI's rapid evolution and escalating impact on daily life. Forty state attorneys general, representing both Democratic and Republican administrations, have openly opposed the moratorium. California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta, in particular, has stressed the ongoing need for state-level oversight as AI systems grow more sophisticated and integrated into vital sectors such as healthcare, political advertising, and digital communication. California has been a leader in AI regulation, passing laws that make it illegal to create and distribute AI-generated explicit images without consent, known as deepfakes.

The state has also outlawed unauthorized deepfake political ads to protect election integrity and imposed transparency rules on AI use by healthcare providers to ensure patient safety and informed consent. Attorney General Bonta argues that these actions demonstrate the proactive role states have played in addressing AI-related risks and safeguarding consumers. Opponents of the federal moratorium warn that halting state regulations without comprehensive federal rules would leave consumers exposed to unregulated, high-risk AI uses. They caution that without effective oversight, AI could be exploited in ways that violate privacy, manipulate public opinion, amplify misinformation, and threaten public safety. State regulators emphasize that their capacity to respond quickly and locally is vital to tackling the diverse and rapidly evolving challenges posed by AI. This provision is currently part of a package that faces complex legislative challenges, including Senate approval and budget reconciliation, before it can be enacted. The debate around this ban highlights the wider national discussion about AI regulation—whether it should be centralized federally or involve a layered structure incorporating both federal and state powers. As AI technology continues advancing and becoming embedded in many aspects of society, finding the appropriate regulatory balance remains a significant challenge. While a coordinated federal framework could offer consistency, many experts and officials insist it should not come at the expense of eliminating state-level innovation and protections. Moving forward, lawmakers and stakeholders must carefully consider how to promote responsible AI development that encourages technological progress while protecting the rights and interests of individuals and communities throughout the United States.