The proposed 10-year moratorium on state regulation of AI is dead, by overwhelming consensus from the Senate.
In the early hours of Tuesday morning, the Senate voted 99-1 to remove controversial language from Republicans’ budget legislation, referred to as the “Big Beautiful Bill.” The proposed legislation was increasingly defanged as Congress tried to come up with a compromise to protect states’ legislative independence. But ultimately, the Senate voted to remove the moratorium altogether.
The 10-year ban of states’ legislation of AI was contentious from the start. Big Tech companies like Meta, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon reportedly actively lobbied for passing the bill, saying patchwork state AI regulation would inhibit the U.S.’ competitive edge against threats like China. Those opposed to the bill, including civil advocacy groups, AI safety researchers, and state attorneys general said it would be an unprecedented concession of power to Big Tech and would strip states of its ability to protect people from AI harms.
“The Senate’s overwhelming rejection of this Big Tech power grab underscores the massive bipartisan opposition to letting AI companies run amok,” said Max Tegmark, MIT professor and president of the Future of Life Institute in a public statement. “The CEO’s of these corporations have admitted they cannot control the very systems they’re building, and yet they demand immunity from any meaningful oversight. This threatens families and jobs across America, and the Senate was wise to reject it.”
Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee introduced the amendment to remove the moratorium. Previously, she was working with Sen. Ted Cruz from Texas to soften the provision. As of Monday night, the proposal offered $500 million for federal broadband funding if states opted in to the moratorium. But in the end, Blackburn said they couldn’t meet an agreement.
In a statement to the press, Blackburn said, “While I appreciate Chairman Cruz’s efforts to find acceptable language that allows states to protect their citizens from the abuses of AI, the current language is not acceptable to those who need these protections the most.”
