Senators Maintain AI Positions Despite Renewed Moratorium Push
Several Senate Republicans and Democrats told us in interviews last week their stances on federal AI policy haven’t changed since the chamber voted 99-1 to block a proposed AI moratorium (see 2511200051).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Republicans included three moratorium opponents -- Missouri’s Josh Hawley; South Dakota’s Mike Rounds; and Kansas’ Jerry Moran -- as well as North Carolina’s Thom Tillis, the only senator to vote in favor of blocking state AI laws.
It’s “not entirely clear” what the takeaway is from President Donald Trump’s comments on Truth Social in support of federal preemption, said Hawley: “I understand he wants a uniform federal rule. That’s fine. That’s very different than saying that [state] AI laws ... that prevent deepfake porn, that protect kids online, those should all be preempted. I kind of doubt that’s what he meant.” Hawley called House Republicans’ plans to revisit the moratorium proposal in defense funding negotiations a “terrible idea.”
“Did they not get the message when the Senate voted 99-1?” Senate Intelligence Committee ranking member Mark Warner, D-Va., told us in response to the White House’s reported draft executive order seeking to block state AI regulations. “I think we need some national standards, but considering our pitiful record on social media, if you take away the ability of states to do anything, you’ll have no pressure for [Congress] to do anything. That may be the White House’s approach.”
The White House on Monday referred to a previous statement calling discussion about the draft EO “speculation.”
Rounds said he remains supportive of Congress setting a national standard. States do a good job of addressing “local concerns,” and in some cases, Congress should be able to incorporate state concepts into a national policy, he said: “I’m not sure what [the White House] plan is other than to send a message that we need to get our work done here” on “some of the same issues that are of concern to some of the states.”
Allowing a patchwork of AI regulations is just as “bad” as allowing a patchwork of state regulations on privacy and data breach policy, said Tillis. “Those are two things that need federal preemption to get it right. Otherwise, we’re just disadvantaging ourselves against other countries.” The best approach would be for Congress to pass a law setting a national, preemptive standard, he said: “I would preempt it and have rules of the road at the federal level. We need to codify” for long-term business certainty.
Moran said, “I don’t know that I have different thoughts” since the 99-1 vote removing the moratorium proposal from Congress' spending bill. “Not at this point.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said it’s a “bad idea” for Republicans to revisit the moratorium proposal in defense funding negotiations. “I think it has no legs. It was roundly rejected on a bipartisan basis here.”
Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz, R-Texas, led Senate efforts to attach the moratorium before abandoning failed negotiations with Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn. He spoke generally about AI policy on Thursday: “AI is fundamentally transformational technology. I think it will usher in as great a transformation for our economy as the internet did and perhaps even more so.”
Senate Communications Subcommittee ranking member Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M., and House Communications Subcommittee ranking member Doris Matsui, D-Calif., separately told us they object to the draft order as an infringement of state rights. The proposal in some ways mirrors the Senate’s unsuccessful reconciliation bid to allocate $500 million via the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program in FY 2025 to construct and deploy AI infrastructure. That legislation would have required governments receiving the new BEAD funding to pause enforcing state-level AI rules.
“If the Trump administration wants to get legislation on AI, [Trump] should go tell [House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La.,] that he needs it,” Lujan said. He understands “the importance of getting strong AI legislation adopted, but [Trump], who says he supports states’ rights, is now trying to find another way to go after states.”
Matsui, a strong supporter of California’s AI statutes, said it’s “egregious” that Trump is “trying to mess with states’ AI laws” in the way the draft order proposes. “The states themselves are having to take leadership on this” in the absence of leadership from Congress on AI policymaking, she said.