President Donald Trump is throwing his support behind a congressional effort to impose a moratorium on state-level regulations for artificial intelligence, setting up a rare clash with several Republican governors who argue that states need flexibility to manage the fast-evolving technology.
Trump’s position aligns with House GOP leaders exploring whether to attach a federal preemption on state AI rules to the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said earlier this week that lawmakers were discussing placing the moratorium in the defense bill, according to Punchbowl News.
In a Tuesday post on Truth Social, Trump argued that state regulations threaten the country’s economic momentum. “Investment in AI is helping to make the U.S. Economy the ‘HOTTEST’ in the World, but overregulation by the States is threatening to undermine this Major Growth ‘Engine.’ Some States are even trying to embed DEI ideology into AI models, producing ‘Woke AI,’” he wrote.
He added that the U.S. needs a unified approach to stay ahead of global competitors: “We MUST have one Federal Standard instead of a patchwork of 50 State Regulatory Regimes. If we don’t, then China will easily catch us in the AI race. Put it in the NDAA, or pass a separate Bill, and nobody will ever be able to compete with America.”
Trump’s endorsement drew immediate support from tech investors and policy voices skeptical of regulation. Notably, venture capitalist Marc Andreessen praised the call for federal action, writing on X: “The President is right. A 50-state patchwork is a startup killer. Federal AI legislation is essential. There’s no bigger issue for Little Tech — the builders who create the future, for America.”
The administration’s stance matches its broader AI strategy, which prioritizes rapid innovation and minimal regulatory hurdles.
Republican Governors Split With Trump
Despite Trump’s influence within the party, several GOP governors denounced the idea of blocking state AI rules.
Florida governor Ron DeSantis criticized the proposed moratorium as a giveaway to major technology companies. “Stripping states of jurisdiction to regulate AI is a subsidy to Big Tech and will prevent states from protecting against online censorship of political speech, predatory applications that target children, violations of intellectual property rights and data center intrusions on power/water resources,” he said.
He warned that federal preemption would weaken local control over a powerful new technology. “The rise of AI is the most significant economic and cultural shift occurring at the moment; denying the people the ability to channel these technologies in a productive way via self-government constitutes federal government overreach and lets technology companies run wild.”
After activists urged voters to oppose the potential NDAA amendment, DeSantis escalated his criticism, calling the idea an “insult to voters.”
Arkansas governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, another longtime Trump ally, also pushed back. “This summer I led 20 GOP governors to pressure Congress to vote down its 10 year prohibition on state-level AI regulations — protecting Arkansas’ AI child-exploitation ban and other commonsense safeguards. Now isn’t the time to backtrack. Drop the preemption plan now and protect our kids and communities,” she said.
Legislative Outlook Remains Uncertain
Trump’s backing could reinvigorate efforts in Congress after a previous attempt faltered. Earlier this year, Senator Ted Cruz—chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and an advocate for accelerating AI development—tried to include a similar measure in a GOP budget bill. The Senate voted overwhelmingly to remove it.
Democrats have signaled they would resist any renewed attempt to curb state authority. Senator Brian Schatz called the idea “a poison pill” on X, adding in a reply that the proposal would create federal preemption without establishing any accompanying federal standards.
Public Sentiment and Broader AI Safety Debate
The debate comes as AI safety concerns gain traction across the political spectrum. Advocates argue that protections are especially important for children and for mitigating potential economic and social harms.
A June poll from the conservative Institute for Family Studies found that 55 percent of voters opposed the proposed moratorium, compared with 18 percent in favor and 27 percent undecided. Opposition cut across age groups and parties.
Michael Toscano, who directs the group’s family-first technology initiative, said the survey reflects the public’s experience with past technology policy decisions. “The American people have learned the hard way. When you shield Big Tech companies from liability, kids get hurt, communities and families get sacrificed, and now with AI, religious voices and workers get sidelined,” he said. He argued that preemption without federal standards would “leave citizens exposed to exploitation and without recourse to political remedy.”
He added: “Instead of spending so much political capital on circumventing the democratic process on the most important policy issue of this generation, we should trust in democracy, let the people have a say, and put every effort into formulating and adopting a federal standard.”
A Growing Fault Line for 2025
The dispute highlights widening tensions inside the Republican Party over the balance between promoting innovation and ensuring public safeguards. Whether lawmakers ultimately attempt to attach the moratorium to the NDAA—or pursue a separate bill—remains unclear.
%20(1)%20(1)%20(1).png)
