US House lawmakers release draft bill to prohibit state AI rules

https://www.reuters.com/business/us-house-lawmakers-release-draft-bill-regulate-ai-2026-06-04/

by 1vuio0pswjnm7 • 2 months ago

130 91 2 months ago

panny• 2 months ago

Amendment 10 of the US Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Where in the Constitution does it delegate authority over AI to the federal government? Just curious.

yesfitz• 2 months ago

Probably the Commerce Clause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

ljlolel• 2 months ago

So then wouldn’t cover open source

tristanj• 2 months ago

It's covered by the interstate commerce clause.

dh20223• 2 months ago

How does the inter states commerce clause block a state from blocking data center buildout?

tootie• 2 months ago

It's perfectly reasonable to want one set of rules instead of a patchwork across very open borders. But just saying "you can't do it" is pretty lame compared to actually coming up with sensible rules first.

toast0• 2 months ago

My understanding is that courts usually require actual constitutional federal regulations to exist for Federal Supremecy to apply. But this is just cooercive regulation through barely related funding. I believe that's generally legally acceptable.

CamperBob2• 2 months ago

And you expect the current Federal government to come up with "sensible rules?"

chris_money202• 2 months ago

Congress is allowed to make laws (covered by the constitution) if that law grants the federal government the authority over something then the law is covered by the constitution.

jfengel2• 2 months ago

Fortunately, the administration's party believes that control belongs to the states and not in the hands of Washington bureaucrats.

voidfunc• 2 months ago

Sarcasm right?

bigyabai• 2 months ago

It's been a joke ever since The Lost Cause was invented.

analognoise• 2 months ago

Fascist parties aren’t worried about logical inconsistency, they’re only worried about the pursuit of unchecked power. They crossed that bridge some time ago.

These aren’t the old breed of Republicans who disagreed but at least were consistent.

zdragnar3• 2 months ago

Considering that most of the rules states would introduce would run a foul of interstate commerce, it seems like a good way to get ahead of pointless lawsuits.

Note that these rules apply to the development of AI, not any restriction on how it is used in e.g. schools, communications etc.

Retric6• 2 months ago

Interstate commerce has been redefined to mean both way less and way more than the phrase might seem to imply. States can for example introduce rules on emissions when no cars are manufactured in that state.

mikem1702• 2 months ago

Does the interestate commerce clause preclude state laws pertaining to implementation and usage?

For example, can a state outlaw public plate/facial recognition cameras, or usage of social network data and AI by local police?

You could still buy AI, but The People decided you can't use it on the public for anything and everything just because big tech profits.

Or has that become the point of the interstate commerce clause, that big companies can maximize profits in cooperation (lobbying) with one federal government, instead of being inconvenienced with the laws of fifty states, in this the richest country of the world?

dh20223• 2 months ago

Do you have an example of an AI state rule that does not obey the interstate commerce law?

LastTrain• 2 months ago

Thanks for confirming what we always knew - you never actually gave two shits about states rights, thus confirming OPs point.

polski-g• 2 months ago

Most state laws would also run a foul of Bernstein v DOJ: computer code is free speech just like French is.

yieldcrv2• 2 months ago

amusing, but the pattern actually is clear. they don’t like laws created by courts, and when there isn’t an affirming law matching the court decision passed by Congress then it falls back to the states.

so if Congress passes the law its fine, Congress just happens to not have a consensus forming mechanism for things the parties choose to be interested in, for decades.

Courts striking down a law passed by the legislature, voter referendum (exclusive to some states) or agency - fine, tolerable.

Courts creating a national law in the absence of one by the legislature - not fine, intolerable. Only fixable by the court overruling itself or constitutional amendment.

jfengel2• 2 months ago

They are routinely thrilled when it's law passed by the courts in their favor. The court has made a bewildering set of rulings on gerrymandering whose only commonality is they they always favor Republicans.

onlyrealcuzzo• 2 months ago

Small government, unless it gets in the way of a certain billionaire's plans to ram AI / unsafe autonomous vehicles down your throats.

The interesting thing is... The only people who seem to hate all things AI more than liberals are MAGA, so it'll be interesting how this is spun.

I just really don't see anyone except AI-bulls like Kevin O'Leary who think it's in everyone's best interest for people to have no say on AI.

To be clear, I'm an AI bull myself, and I think most things are good, but I also think people and communities should be able to have their say, and I think anyone who doesn't - doesn't deserve to call themselves anything other than an authoritarian.

If the people don't know what's good for them, it isn't a them problem it's a you problem, not a ram it down their throats cause it's best for them problem...

anigbrowl• 2 months ago

The only people who seem to hate all things AI more than liberals are MAGA

Why do you say this? Going by MAGA types online, they seem extremely willing to rely on it for opinions and to generate political 'art'.

bryanrasmussen• 2 months ago

The only people who seem to hate all things AI more than liberals are MAGA,

It seems to me that meme usage tells a decidedly different story.

rayiner7• 2 months ago

“Control” of what? The type of thing is relevant. E.g. Nobody says regulating trains or airlines belongs to states. Similarly, nobody says the internet should be regulated by states.

Barrin92• 2 months ago

haven't countless of red American states passed age verification laws in relation to adult entertainment recently? Or is that different because there's only AI but no porn oligarchs in Washington?

ericio• 2 months ago

Would you say growing wheat to feed your own farm animals should be regulated by the federal government? SCOTUS decided in Wikard v Filburn [1] that a farmer growing wheat for private use was in fact inter-state commerce. This decision has been used to uphold all manner of federal laws that on their face appear to regulate private conduct totally within the confines of a single state.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

themafia3• 2 months ago

Unfortunately, there's always someone to blindly inject party politics into HN threads.

So, is what you're saying, is that if the "other party" had a majority, this wouldn't happen? Or.. what are you trying to convey? You don't like republicans and find them hypocritical?

bdangubic• 2 months ago

the last one. states rights only when convenient :)

jubilanti• 2 months ago

#1 this is literally a thread about laws in the US Congress, how is this not about party politics?

#2 they are alluding to how, historically, Republicans have advocated against so many regulations and social services, under the rationale of "State's Rights." But the new Republican party under Trump has repeatedly been enforcing nationwide conservative policies that completely trample on the states and give so much centralized power to the federal government.

gradientsrneat• 2 months ago

Trump in December said he would withhold federal broadband funding from states whose laws to regulate AI are judged by his administration to be holding back American dominance in the technology.

Specifically, this is funding for BEAD (Broadband Equity, Access, And Deployment):

https://www.ntia.gov/funding-programs/high-speed-internet-pr...

Which among other things does "Deploying or upgrading internet infrastructure in unserved or underserved areas, or improving service to community anchor institutions".

From the executive order in December, withholding of funds could include residential internet repairs and bandwidth upgrades, assuming that falls under "non-deployment":

https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/12/fact-sheet-pr...

olivierestsage• 2 months ago

Sure sign that we are not dealing with a coercive situation! :)

amazingamazing• 2 months ago

Would people have the same reaction if it were solar tech, nuclear?

Retric6• 2 months ago

States do restrict those things quite heavily without much comment from the general public.

Florida has done a lot to minimize home solar for example.

antiframe3• 2 months ago

Florida has done a lot to minimize home solar for example.

In what way? A quick Google search led me to reasonable rules. Maybe not as lax as I would like (they require it to be connected to the grid and feed power back) but I didn't see anything overly onerous.

phs318u• 2 months ago

Or abortion, or the right of people to be taught the truth about their own country's history, or the right to support clean technologies, or the right to have public spaces and schools free of religious dogma, and ...

pasttense01• 2 months ago

The best solution is to have uniform federal regulation with no state laws.

The not as good solution is to have state regulation. Note this means companies will generally adopt policies nationally to meet the requirements of the big, restrictive states (California, etc)

The worst solution is the House approach which will ban state regulation accompanied by the status quo of no federal regulation.

pstuart• 2 months ago

The whole "state rights" thing has traditionally been to allow states to do shitty things, but there's value in having freedom to experiment too.

I believe that regulations in general serve us well, but they can be onerous. We then fall into each side talking past each other with one advocating for more regulations and the other for no regulations. I think the way to address this is for the pro-regulation side recognize resulting burdens and actively work to mitigate the pain rather than just take a "not my problem" approach.

mikem1702• 2 months ago

The best solution is to have uniform federal regulation with no state laws

What if the feds won't let a state outlaw policing using AI? Or insurance companies setting rates based on AI interpretation of their driving, phone location, browsing and/or credit card data? Or public license plate and face tracking by private companies?

Why do the feds want to interfere with the states setting implementation rules for themselves? What if the federal rules are really bad, or non-existent, perhaps due to lobbying/corruption?

Who is helped by uniform federal regulation? The public in all fifty states? Or big tech AI companies?

dh20223• 2 months ago

If federal regulations allow communities to ban data centers I am all for it. But I think the federal regulation that will emerge will block communities from doing their thing.

jjav• 2 months ago

The best solution is to have uniform federal regulation with no state laws.

If we believe that government mostly does the right thing for the people, this is true. One set of rules, simpler, more efficient.

OTOH, if there ever was a hope that government is driven by a desire to do the right thing for the people, that has certainly been shattered lately. It is now completely transparent that they're in it for the grift and personal power, that's it full stop. They don't even pretend otherwise anymore.

So, having laws being as decentralized as possible is the best solution. Having to bribe and corrupt 50 state legislatures is a lot more work than bribing and corrupting a handful of people in DC.

Even more decentralized would be better. Counties should set their own laws without interference from above. There are 3244 counties in the US, it would now take enormous work to bribe and corrupt 3244 legislatures.

Inefficient? Yes, very. So be it. That's still better than a few oligarchs imposing their will for personal benefit from the top.

jwitthuhn2• 2 months ago

Good, Bernstein v. United States already established that software is speech. Limitations on what software one is allowed to produce are very blatant prior restraint.

gamblor956• 2 months ago

The case established that code is speech.

Software is not protected as speech.

jwitthuhn2• 2 months ago

Thanks for the correction, I had misunderstood that and thought it applied more broadly but it is indeed just "source code".

Given that, I'm glad to see something that protects software more broadly.

jmyeet• 2 months ago

I'm reminded of the 2010s fight over net neutrality. That clown Ajit Pai was brought in to kill it at the behest of the national ISPs. He's now the head of the CTIA. That's so weird. Anyway, Pai as FCC Commissioner argued the Federal government shouldn't be regulating net neutrality.

California said "bet" and said if this wasn't a federal issue we'll do it instead. States rights, right? Wrong. The DoJ sued saying they can't do that [1].

At a certain point you have to realize "state's rights' is bullshit. The only thing this administration stands for is deregulation for extra profit of significant donors.

We have the same thing where the Federal government is suing states over banning prediction markets (even though gambling is already banned by certain states).

There are no principles here. It's all just kleptocracy. In this case, states absolutely have sovereignty regarding land use. This isn't a free speech issue. It's the same as zoning. This is like the Federal government saying "you can't ban casinos" or "you can't have high density housing".

[1] https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-f...

BLKNSLVR2• 2 months ago

Small government for topics we don't care about, like education.

Big government for agendas that we're pushing.

(and when we say 'pushing' we mean 'planning to profit from').

fastball2• 2 months ago

Not sure I follow. What happened to student attainment after the DoEd was introduced?

BLKNSLVR2• 2 months ago

https://www.npr.org/2025/11/18/nx-s1-5607221/education-depar...

https://www.ed.gov/about/initiatives/returning-education-sta...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/11/doge-educati...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-12/us-education-departme...

rayiner7• 2 months ago

Small government for topics we don't care about, like education.

Every federal system has a division of responsibility between the federal government and sub-national governments. And education is assigned to the sub-national governments not just in the U.S., but in other federal systems: Canada, Germany, Switzerland, etc. Switzerland, for example, doesn't even have a federal ministry of education: https://www.aboutswitzerland.eda.admin.ch/en/switzerlands-ed....

em-bee• 2 months ago

the distributed responsibility for education in germany was expressly designed that way to prevent national indoctrination.

tancop• 2 months ago

if its really about development only and not preventing regulations on ai usage then its not a bad idea. but i dont see US politicians doing something like that.

i really think the best way to handle this is federally protect open source code including ai (but also things like hack tools, anonymous crypto payments and breaking drm). that way states can regulate for profit companies as much as they want and it cant hurt free speech for individual people.

tw04• 2 months ago

Why is federal rules forcing states to host business they don’t want a good thing? AI isn’t a protected class. Nothing about a datacenter provides benefit to local communities. It increases their water and electricity bills so that someone on the other side of the country can either replace them with a computer or just get rich off their natural resources.

And then those same rich a-holes use their profits to attack any political momentum that would see them actually having to pay a remotely fair amount in taxes.

US House lawmakers release draft bill to prohibit state AI rules

Related Stories