A bill pausing state AI regulation — preempting state law while a federal framework is built

1Who decides, the federal government or the states

Any attempt to regulate AI in the United States runs into the question of whether Congress decides or the states do. States move faster than the federal government, and in practice state law has arrived first. What this bill does is pause that flow, establishing a temporary moratorium under which federal law preempts certain state laws restricting AI models and systems engaged in interstate commerce.

2The reasons stated in the findings

1. 1Assessment of the presentThe United States leads the world in AI through a thriving innovation, investment and development environment and a flexible, sector-specific regulatory framework
2. 2Where the problem liesA patchwork of divergent state AI rules creates conflicting requirements, forces firms to navigate multiple agencies and can deter investment
3. 3Uneven impactSmall businesses face disproportionate compliance burdens
4. 4The competitive frameGlobal competitors are racing to develop and deploy these technologies for strategic advantage

That small businesses appear third among the reasons stands out. Meeting rules that differ by state carries fixed costs, and the burden falls harder the smaller the firm. The case for uniformity is framed around fairness of entry rather than the convenience of large companies.

3How the definitions are written

Section 2 separates artificial intelligence model from automated decision system. The former is a software component producing outputs from inputs; the latter issues a simplified output such as a score, classification or recommendation to materially influence or replace human decision-making.

The latter is the one more likely to draw regulation, and the drafting reads as drawing the line by how a system cuts into human judgment rather than by the model itself.

4The word temporary

The moratorium is temporary, framed as holding while the federal framework and an actionable plan are put in place. It is described as securing time until the federal government decides rather than permanently taking authority from the states. That said, states being unable to act in the interim has substantive effect. Of the 120 bills this site holds as of 2026-09-02, 94 (78 percent) remain referred to committee.