AI Apocalypse Imminent? Congress Set to Freeze AI Regulations for 10 Years!

2025-06-27 00:00:55.864

A measure within President Donald Trump’s domestic policy bill aims to prevent states from enforcing AI regulations for the next 10 years. This moratorium is concerning many, especially as AI's influence grows across various sectors, from healthcare to law enforcement. While Silicon Valley touts AI's potential, significant risks like job displacement and the spread of misinformation exist. Currently, there's no federal AI law, though the recent Take It Down Act addresses non-consensual explicit images. Several states have enacted AI laws, focusing on issues like deepfakes and AI-driven discrimination. These state laws would become unenforceable under the proposed moratorium, which is linked to crucial federal internet infrastructure funding. The tech world is divided on the issue, with some seeking to avoid inconsistent state regulations while others oppose the moratorium. The provision faces opposition from academics, tech workers, advocacy groups, and even lawmakers. Forty attorneys general wrote to Congress urging against the moratorium, citing concerns about the loss of consumer and voter protections against malicious AI use. North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson expressed worries about the inability to combat future, unforeseen AI-related harms. He highlighted the lack of congressional action on AI safeguards despite numerous proposed bills, attributing this inaction to technological complexities and powerful lobbyists. Jackson argues that the choice isn't between a patchwork of state regulations and a unified national approach, but rather between allowing states to implement safeguards and doing nothing for a decade. He expresses skepticism about Congress's ability to create effective national safeguards, citing past failures in regulating the internet, privacy, and social media. The argument from tech companies that excessive regulation would hinder US competitiveness against China is also addressed, with Jackson acknowledging the concern about over-regulation but emphasizing the greater danger of inaction.