US House Passes Bill Including Controversial 10-Year Moratorium on State AI Laws

The United States House of Representatives early Thursday narrowly approved a budget bill that, if enacted, would prohibit states from enforcing laws regulating artificial intelligence for 10 years. This significant move, affecting the landscape of Ai 10 policies across the nation, was part of a larger legislative package.

In a close party-line vote of 215 to 214, House Republicans passed the bill, known as H.R. 1 or the “One Big, Beautiful” bill. This comprehensive legislation encompasses a range of GOP priorities, including tax reforms and immigration policies, and aims to implement President Donald Trump’s domestic agenda. If signed into law through the budget reconciliation process, the inclusion of a decade-long moratorium on state AI laws would represent one of the most substantial federal actions on technology policy seen in recent decades. This action is closely watched by those interested in examples of artificial intelligence in everyday life and how it might be regulated.

Supporters argue that a 10-year moratorium would prevent a confusing and potentially contradictory patchwork of state-level AI regulations that have started to emerge across the country. They contend this pause would provide Congress necessary time to develop comprehensive federal AI legislation, thereby preserving American leadership in AI innovation. Conversely, opponents view the moratorium as a dangerous concession to tech companies. They express concerns that it would leave consumers vulnerable and unprotected, particularly impacting vulnerable communities and children. Critics argue it would negate numerous state laws already addressing critical issues ranging from deepfakes to potential discrimination in automated hiring processes. Understanding examples of artificial intelligence in daily life highlights the potential impact of such policies on individuals.

The bill now moves to the Senate, where its future is highly uncertain. Democratic lawmakers are expected to challenge the inclusion of the AI moratorium within the reconciliation package. Their challenge would likely be based on the Byrd Rule, which disallows provisions deemed “extraneous” to the federal budget from being included in the reconciliation process. The debate surrounding this legislation touches upon the very nature of AI and its integration into society, prompting questions about artificial intelligence examples in daily life and how they should be governed.

House Republicans embedded the AI moratorium provision within a section directing the Commerce Department to allocate funds for “modernize and secure Federal information technology systems through the deployment of commercial artificial intelligence.” The measure has remained largely consistent since its consideration by the House Energy and Commerce Committee earlier this month. However, lawmakers on the House Committee on Rules recently added an exemption, ensuring the moratorium would not apply to the enforcement of any law that carries a criminal penalty. The potential impact on tech companies and their market value is also a subject of discussion, particularly concerning 10 best ai stocks.

Beyond widespread rejection from Democrats, the proposal is also facing opposition from some Senate Republicans. Achieving passage would largely require their united support. At a Senate hearing Wednesday, Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) voiced strong reservations, expressing concern that the bill could override legislation in her state designed to protect artists from deepfakes.

“Speaking to the states and their actions, I do want to mention that Tennessee passed the ELVIS Act, which is like our first generation of the NO FAKES Act,” Senator Blackburn stated. “And we certainly know that, in Tennessee, we need those protections, and until we pass something that is federally preemptive, we can’t call for a moratorium on those things.”

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) has also reportedly pushed back against the proposed moratorium.

The measure underwent debate during a House subcommittee hearing Wednesday, following its advancement out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee the previous week.

“A patchwork of various state laws is not good for innovation, for business or consumers, and that is what we’re trying to avoid,” argued Representative Russ Fulcher (R-IN) during the hearing.

The US Capitol building, where lawmakers debated a controversial 10-year moratorium on state AI regulations.

Taking an opposing stance at the same hearing, Representative Lori Trahan (D-MA) commented, “Make no mistake, the families who have come to this committee and begged for us to act won’t benefit from this proposal. But you know who will? The Big Tech CEOs who are sitting behind Donald Trump at his inauguration.”

Support for the measure comes from various tech industry and business groups, including the US Chamber of Commerce, as well as some think tanks focused on free markets. Significant opposition has been voiced by dozens of state lawmakers and attorneys general, including both Democrats and Republicans, alongside numerous civil society organizations dedicated to tech policy and consumer rights. Discussions around artificial intelligence as a service often intersect with these regulatory debates.

Adam Thierer, a senior fellow at the R Street Institute and a witness at the House subcommittee hearing, testified, “Costly, contradictory regulation is a surefire recipe for destroying a technological revolution and decimating little tech innovators. An AI moratorium offers a smart way to address this problem by granting innovators some breathing space and helping ensure a robust national AI marketplace develops.” Thierer had previously proposed the idea of a moratorium in a post on R Street’s website.

Another witness at the hearing, Amba Kak, co-executive director of the AI Now Institute, offered a contrasting viewpoint.

“This is an industry that has fooled us once, and we cannot let them fool us again with AI in this environment. The proposal for a sweeping moratorium on state AI-related legislation really flies in the face of common sense,” she asserted. “We can’t be treating the industry’s worst players with kid gloves while leaving everyday people, workers and children exposed to egregious forms of harm.”

The passage of this bill in the House, with its proposed 10-year ban on state AI regulations, signals a major point of contention in the ongoing debate over how artificial intelligence should be governed in the United States. While supporters hope to create a unified federal approach and foster innovation, opponents fear it leaves consumers unprotected and undermines necessary state-level safeguards already in place. The ultimate fate of this provision, and its potential impact on the future of AI development and regulation, now rests with the Senate.