A sweeping tax and spending package backed by President Donald Trump is under fire for a controversial provision that could block states from regulating artificial intelligence — and now, Senate Republicans are proposing changes.The House-passed version of the “Big Beautiful Bill” includes a 10-year ban on state and local governments enacting or enforcing AI regulations. Supporters say the measure would prevent a confusing patchwork of laws across the country. Critics say it could strip communities of control over projects that impact their neighborhoods.Tyler Ray has been fighting to stop a 466,000-square-foot AI data center from being built near his home in Alexandria, Virginia. He worries the bill could nullify efforts like his.“It potentially could undo not only my efforts at the state and local level, but anyone across the country who is working to try to regulate and rein in data centers,” he said.Representative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who voted against the bill, shared a similar warning in a post on X.“The Big Beautiful Bill contains a provision banning state and local governments from regulating AI. It’s worse than you think,” Massie wrote. “It would make it easier for corporations to get zoning variances, so massive AI data centers could be built in close proximity to residential areas.”Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene admitted she didn’t read the provision before voting for the bill. She says if she had, she would have opposed it.“I am adamantly opposed to this, and it is a violation of state rights,” Greene wrote. “We have no idea what AI will be capable of in the next 10 years, and tying states’ hands is potentially dangerous.”House Speaker Mike Johnson defended the legislation, saying the bill does not eliminate all state authority.“It’s important to point out that the states still have the authority under law to pass criminal laws and laws of general applicability, so we’re not taking away states’ rights,” Johnson said.Amid the backlash, Senate Republicans on the Commerce Committee introduced an alternative. Instead of a blanket ban on AI regulations, their version ties federal broadband funding to whether a state is actively regulating AI. If a state wants the funding, it must agree to pause its own rules.That proposal is also drawing criticism from watchdog groups.“I think what we are seeing now is an attempted gift to big tech companies that would certainly profit from a complete lack of oversight,” said Lawrence Norden of the Brennan Center for Justice.Some policy experts argue that a patchwork of aggressive state regulations is already slowing innovation and threatening national competitiveness.”I think that’s a theoretical concern and not a practical concern. We know if they’re broad-based laws, not the laws that are specifically directed at artificial general intelligence and these kind of advanced AI systems,” said Will Rinehart of the American Enterprise Institute. “Generally speaking, I see this state-layered patchwork as a really, really big problem. It’s something we have to try and upend.”Ray said the debate in Washington feels disconnected from the reality on the ground.“The concerns for residents and the environment seem to be overshadowed by the power and influence that these developers have,” he said.With the Senate version now in play, the fate of the AI regulation provision could depend on how both chambers reconcile their differences in the coming weeks.
A sweeping tax and spending package backed by President Donald Trump is under fire for a controversial provision that could block states from regulating artificial intelligence — and now, Senate Republicans are proposing changes.
The House-passed version of the “Big Beautiful Bill” includes a 10-year ban on state and local governments enacting or enforcing AI regulations. Supporters say the measure would prevent a confusing patchwork of laws across the country. Critics say it could strip communities of control over projects that impact their neighborhoods.
Advertisement
Tyler Ray has been fighting to stop a 466,000-square-foot AI data center from being built near his home in Alexandria, Virginia. He worries the bill could nullify efforts like his.
“It potentially could undo not only my efforts at the state and local level, but anyone across the country who is working to try to regulate and rein in data centers,” he said.
Representative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who voted against the bill, shared a similar warning in a post on X.
“The Big Beautiful Bill contains a provision banning state and local governments from regulating AI. It’s worse than you think,” Massie wrote. “It would make it easier for corporations to get zoning variances, so massive AI data centers could be built in close proximity to residential areas.”
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene admitted she didn’t read the provision before voting for the bill. She says if she had, she would have opposed it.
“I am adamantly opposed to this, and it is a violation of state rights,” Greene wrote. “We have no idea what AI will be capable of in the next 10 years, and tying states’ hands is potentially dangerous.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson defended the legislation, saying the bill does not eliminate all state authority.
“It’s important to point out that the states still have the authority under law to pass criminal laws and laws of general applicability, so we’re not taking away states’ rights,” Johnson said.
Amid the backlash, Senate Republicans on the Commerce Committee introduced an alternative. Instead of a blanket ban on AI regulations, their version ties federal broadband funding to whether a state is actively regulating AI. If a state wants the funding, it must agree to pause its own rules.
That proposal is also drawing criticism from watchdog groups.
“I think what we are seeing now is an attempted gift to big tech companies that would certainly profit from a complete lack of oversight,” said Lawrence Norden of the Brennan Center for Justice.
Some policy experts argue that a patchwork of aggressive state regulations is already slowing innovation and threatening national competitiveness.
“I think that’s a theoretical concern and not a practical concern. We know if they’re broad-based laws, not the laws that are specifically directed at artificial general intelligence and these kind of advanced AI systems,” said Will Rinehart of the American Enterprise Institute. “Generally speaking, I see this state-layered patchwork as a really, really big problem. It’s something we have to try and upend.”
Ray said the debate in Washington feels disconnected from the reality on the ground.
“The concerns for residents and the environment seem to be overshadowed by the power and influence that these developers have,” he said.
With the Senate version now in play, the fate of the AI regulation provision could depend on how both chambers reconcile their differences in the coming weeks.
