Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly changing the way we live, work, learn, and communicate. Like many emerging technologies, it brings tremendous opportunities. It also presents legitimate questions about privacy, consumer protection, intellectual property, public safety, energy use, and the impact of automation on our economy.

As lawmakers, our responsibility is to address those questions thoughtfully and responsibly. That is why I recently joined state legislators from across the country in expressing concerns about a proposal currently being considered by Congress that would prevent states from enforcing or adopting certain artificial intelligence laws for a period of three years.

My concern is not about whether artificial intelligence should be regulated, but who should make those decisions. I have long been a supporter of federalism and states’ rights. Our constitutional system recognizes that not every policy decision should be made in Washington, D.C. States serve as laboratories of democracy, allowing different approaches to be tested, evaluated, and improved over time.

Wisconsin has often been at the forefront of that tradition. Whether the issue is education, elections, environmental policy, public safety, or consumer protection, states are often better positioned than Congress to respond to the unique needs and concerns of their citizens. Artificial intelligence should be no different.

The proposal currently under discussion in Congress would broadly restrict states from acting in several areas related to artificial intelligence while providing no comprehensive federal framework to replace existing state protections. That means states could lose the ability to address emerging concerns even as AI technology continues to evolve at an extraordinary pace. Regardless of where one stands on specific AI policies, that should concern anyone who believes in responsive government. Technology changes far more quickly than Congress typically acts. If states are prevented from responding to new developments, citizens may be left waiting years for federal policymakers to address problems that are already affecting their communities.

Consider some of the issues already being debated across the country: How should consumers be protected when artificial intelligence systems collect and use personal information?

How should states address AI-generated fraud and scams?

How should artists, authors, and creators protect their work from unauthorized use? How should policymakers respond to artificial intelligence systems that target children or expose them to harmful content?

The best path forward is still being debated. That is exactly why Congress should not prevent states from exploring solutions and responding to the concerns of their citizens. The proposal has drawn concern from lawmakers across the political spectrum. Republicans, Democrats, and independents from dozens of states joined together to oppose the federal preemption language because they recognize that states have an important role to play as artificial intelligence continues to develop.

As a Wisconsin legislator, I am not interested in allowing Silicon Valley corporations or federal bureaucrats to dictate every aspect of artificial intelligence policy. I trust Wisconsinites to have a voice in decisions that affect their families, businesses, schools, and communities.

If Congress believes a national framework is necessary, then Congress should debate and enact one, but freezing state action without establishing meaningful federal protections is the wrong approach. Artificial intelligence will undoubtedly shape the future. The question is whether states will be allowed to help shape that future as well. I believe they should.

As long as I serve in the Wisconsin Legislature, I will continue defending the principle that powers not delegated to the federal government belong to the states and the people. Artificial intelligence may be new technology, but the importance of local representation, accountable government, and state authority remains as important as ever.

The Role of States in Shaping AI Policy

The debate over AI regulation is not just a technical or legal issue—it is a fundamental question about how democratic societies should govern emerging technologies. Historically, states have played a critical role in shaping public policy, especially when federal action lags behind technological advancement. This dynamic has been particularly evident in areas such as environmental protection, consumer rights, and digital privacy.

For instance, California’s pioneering data privacy laws, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), set a precedent for other states and influenced national discussions on how to protect personal information in an increasingly connected world. Similarly, states like New York and Washington have taken early steps to regulate AI-generated content, including deepfakes and synthetic media, which pose unique challenges to public trust and misinformation.

These examples illustrate that states are not only capable of addressing complex policy issues but also often more responsive to the needs of their residents. When federal legislation is slow or incomplete, state legislatures can act as a bridge between innovation and regulation, ensuring that technological progress does not outpace legal and ethical safeguards.

The Risks of Federal Preemption in AI Regulation

The current proposal under consideration by Congress represents a significant shift in this dynamic. By restricting states from enacting or enforcing certain AI-related laws for three years, the measure effectively freezes state-level innovation in AI governance. This approach raises several concerns that extend beyond immediate policy implications.

First, it undermines the principle of federalism, which has long been a cornerstone of American governance. The U.S. Constitution grants states broad authority to regulate matters within their jurisdiction unless explicitly reserved for the federal government. By limiting this power without offering an equivalent federal framework, the proposal risks creating a regulatory vacuum that could leave citizens vulnerable to unaddressed risks.

Second, it may stifle innovation and experimentation in AI governance. States have historically been laboratories of democracy where new ideas are tested and refined before being adopted nationally. If states are prevented from acting on AI-related issues, they lose an essential mechanism for shaping the future of technology in a way that reflects local values and priorities.

Third, the proposal could lead to uneven enforcement across jurisdictions. Without a comprehensive federal framework, states may be forced to adopt inconsistent or incomplete regulations, creating confusion for businesses and consumers alike. This lack of uniformity could also complicate cross-state collaboration on issues such as data privacy, AI-generated content moderation, and consumer protection.

The Need for a Balanced Approach

The challenge facing policymakers is not whether AI should be regulated, but how to ensure that regulation keeps pace with technological change while respecting the principles of federalism and local governance. A balanced approach would allow states to continue innovating in AI policy while also providing clear guidance at the national level.

One possible model is a federal framework that sets minimum standards for data privacy, consumer protection, and content moderation, while still allowing states to enact more stringent or tailored regulations. This approach would preserve the flexibility of state-level experimentation while ensuring a baseline of legal clarity and consistency across the country.

Another consideration is the role of public-private partnerships in AI governance. While states can play a critical role in setting regulatory standards, collaboration with industry stakeholders—such as tech companies, researchers, and civil society organizations—can help ensure that policies are both effective and equitable. This collaborative model has been successfully applied in areas such as cybersecurity and data privacy, where state and federal agencies have worked together to develop best practices.

Ultimately, the goal should be to create a regulatory environment that is both adaptive and inclusive—one that allows for innovation while protecting the rights and interests of all citizens.

Conclusion

The debate over AI regulation highlights a broader tension between technological progress and democratic governance. As AI continues to reshape our world, it is essential that policymakers at all levels work together to ensure that regulations keep pace with innovation without undermining local autonomy or public trust.

States have a vital role to play in this process, serving as laboratories of democracy where new ideas can be tested and refined. By freezing state action without providing an equivalent federal framework, the current proposal risks creating a regulatory gap that could leave citizens vulnerable to unaddressed risks. Instead, a balanced approach—one that allows for both state-level experimentation and national coordination—is needed.

As lawmakers and citizens, we must remain vigilant in ensuring that AI governance reflects our shared values of transparency, accountability, and equity. The future of artificial intelligence will be shaped by the choices we make today, and it is crucial that all voices—state and federal—are heard in this important conversation. What readers should watch next is how state legislatures continue to respond to emerging AI challenges and whether Congress will take a more collaborative approach to shaping the regulatory landscape for this transformative technology.

---

Original Source

This article is based on publicly available reporting. For the complete original story, visit the publisher’s article.