States Rush to Deny AI Personhood Amid Growing Fight Over Regulation
In America, being a person confers certain inalienable rights, a concept fiercely contested throughout history. The latest battleground is whether artificial intelligence (AI) should be regarded as possessing similar rights to humans.
Numerous states have initiated or are considering legislation to explicitly deny AI the status of personhood. This legislative push coincides with efforts from the Trump administration to centralize AI regulation at the federal level rather than allowing states to formulate their own rules.
State Regulation
For instance, a House lawmaker in Oklahoma recently proposed legislation prohibiting AI from attaining personhood status. Representative Cody Maynard remarked, “AI is a man-made tool, and it should not have any more rights than a hammer.” This reflects growing concerns about AI’s implications, especially amid news of individuals attempting to marry AI companions, raising questions about AI sentience.
States like Idaho and Utah have enacted measures preventing any government from recognizing AI as a legal person, with North Dakota following suit. Similarly, lawmakers in Ohio have introduced legislation mirroring Oklahoma’s efforts.
What Constitutes a Person?
The definition of a person in American law is complex and has evolved over time. Katherine Forrest, co-chair of the Global AI Group for Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, notes that “the definition of person has had a very flexible meaning over time.” Legal personhood enables entities to engage in legal systems, such as entering contracts or participating in lawsuits.
This debate has historical roots, evidenced by the Constitution’s 3/5ths Compromise, which impacted the rights of enslaved individuals. Over time, personhood has been extended to various groups, with corporations as the most notable non-human entities granted certain rights.
The landmark case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad established corporate personhood, expanding legal rights for corporations. This raises questions about granting similar rights to AI.
AI Personhood
As discussions about AI personhood continue, questions about AI’s capabilities remain prevalent. “Human beings have dreams. Even dogs have dreams, but not you, you are just a machine,” an AI perspective might suggest. Currently, AI does not possess the characteristics that define humanity.
Lawmakers like Maynard aim to preemptively deny AI personhood to prevent companies from evading responsibility for unlawful actions by attributing blame to AI systems. For example, if self-driving cars were granted personhood, accountability could become blurred, complicating liability.
Legal experts argue recognizing AI as legal persons would create significant challenges regarding liability. Michael Froomkin, a law professor at the University of Miami, emphasizes that accountability would be complicated because “people build those things,” and shifting responsibility to AI would not serve the public interest.
States vs. Federal Government
This state-level legislation emerges despite President Trump advocating a unified federal approach to AI regulation. In December 2025, he signed an executive order halting state-by-state regulations, citing difficulties startups face complying with fragmented rules.
Trump’s order highlighted the need for a cohesive strategy, stating regulation should not hinder rapid AI development. “The children who are committing suicide, the people who are addicted, who these are their best friends, the misinformation that’s being created, the political issues that are created,” Kalantry remarked, underlining the demand for oversight amidst these concerns.
Maintaining Control
Although Trump did not directly address AI personhood in his order, experts agree it will be a critical issue as AI technology evolves. The overarching consensus is that humans must maintain control over these technologies to ensure responsible development and use.
