Who Decides the Rules — Washington or the States?
In the absence of a comprehensive national system regulating artificial intelligence (AI), numerous US state governments have raced to step in and fill this void. As of the end of 2025, 38 states have enacted more than 100 AI‑related laws related to deepfakes, transparency, government use of AI and consumer safeguards. Earlier in 2020, California enacted SB‑53 (the AI Safety Bill) that requires companies developing large-scale models to document what safety practices they implement and what significant incidents have occurred—indicating movement to address weakening concern toward AI risks.
The federal government, however, has failed to create a comprehensive, unified AI regulatory framework. While Congress has introduced hundreds of AI-related bills in recent years, only a handful have passed. This delay has led states to move on their own, creating a confusing patchwork of regulations across the country.
Move Toward Federal Preemption
But the patchwork state-level AI laws have alarmed the tech industry. Many machinate that disparate laws in a handful of states would stymie innovation, slow AI’s economic takeoff and prevent the United States from competing effectively overseas.
Now some federal lawmakers are looking into how to prevent states from creating their own AI rules. One proposed approach is to include preemption language in federal laws so that states cannot implement their own AI regulations. There are also talks of a federal “AI Litigation Task Force” to fight state laws and to promote one uniform national standard, perhaps enforced by federal agencies.
Proponents of federal preemption contend that a uniform regulatory regime would make it easier for companies to comply when taking products and services to market across the country, making it easier and faster for AI technologies to be developed.
Critics Warn of Centralizing Power
But moves to supersede state laws have come under heavy criticism. Lawmakers and state officials say that states are “laboratories of democracy,” moving quickly to address local AI risks, and shielding citizens when federal oversight is slow or nonexistent. Critics additionally argue that centralizing regulatory power could serve the interests of tech giants, making such companies larger whilst weakening accountability and oversight.
Some members of Congress, in the meantime, are crafting a major AI bill that would address everything from consumer protections and penalties for deepfakes to preventing fraud, child safety and whistleblower protection to testing mandates for large AI laboratories. The bill is designed to strike a balance of oversight and innovation in the field by steering clear of heavy-handed federal model reviews.
As the United States widens its regulatory palette for AI, the debate sheds light on a major uncertainty: should AI governance be uniform nation-wide, or better suited by states to mitigate local risks? The next few months will determine whether the right balance is struck between innovation, safety and accountability in the development of AI.
Read Also: Mike Tyson vs Mayweather Exhibition Fight Set for March 2026 in Africa
