AI Moratorium: A Misunderstood Measure
The 2025 artificial intelligence moratorium that failed to be included in last year’s budget reconciliation bill has been described as “very misunderstood” by Representative Jay Obernolte, R-Calif. He emphasized the necessity for the federal government to lead in establishing an AI regulatory framework for the country.
Sector-Specific Regulation
During his speech at the Incompas Policy Summit, Obernolte advocated for a sector-specific approach to AI regulation, focusing on the risks associated with the technology. He explained that the moratorium was initially intended as “a messaging amendment” rather than a long-term solution.
“We never expected to even get it out of [the] Energy and Commerce [Committee],” he stated. “We thought that the conversation needed to be had.” He was surprised by the moratorium’s progress through Congress but noted that the Senate ultimately stripped it from the bill. “I think people took the wrong message away from it,” he added.
Clarifying Regulatory Roles
Obernolte elaborated that the purpose of the moratorium provision was to define where states have “lanes” in regulating AI and to highlight the necessity for an overarching national law. He asserted that the federal government must first establish the parameters of regulation, outlining what constitutes interstate commerce and where states can innovate.
“What we were saying was not that states shouldn’t have a lane in the regulation of AI,” Obernolte clarified. “What we were saying is that the federal government needs to go first.”
Party Line Fractures
The introduction and movement of the AI moratorium through Congress disrupted typical party lines. While it gained support from some Republicans like Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Representative Rich McCormick, R-Ga., other conservatives, including Senators Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and Josh Hawley, R-Mo., opposed the measure, citing the rights of state legislatures.
Opponents criticized the moratorium for its blanket approach to delaying state regulations, especially as Congress has yet to pass comprehensive nationwide regulations for AI technology.
The Call for a Comprehensive Framework
In discussions with Nextgov/FCW, Obernolte reiterated that “the moratorium was never intended to be a long-term solution.” Its aim was to emphasize the need for the federal government to take the initiative in averting a patchwork of conflicting state laws.
He argued for a robust framework that includes preemptive guardrails to clarify what areas states can legislate in. “I hope that we don’t have to do a moratorium. I hope that we can go straight to passing that framework,” he said, stressing the importance of simultaneous preemption and federal regulation.
Presidential Executive Order
The question of a decade-long moratorium on state AI legislation reached the White House when President Donald Trump signed an executive order in December mandating evaluations of state laws to identify those that could be overly burdensome for AI developers. The order included exceptions for state and local laws related to child safety protections, AI infrastructure, and other specified areas.
Obernolte praised the executive order for its clear delineation of regulatory responsibilities, noting, “The president went through in his executive order and actually said, ‘these are things I think the states should be regulating, not the federal government.’” This action was seen as a positive step towards creating comfortable regulatory lanes for states.
