Join Us

A Federal Pause on State AI Regulation Is the Pro-Innovation Path Forward

As AI technologies develop rapidly, a growing number of states are introducing and advancing regulations to govern their use. This fragmented state-by-state approach poses significant risks to interstate commerce, innovation, and consumer clarity. A narrowly tailored federal pause on the implementation of new or pending state-level AI laws would provide Congress the time needed to establish a national framework that benefits all of American tech.
Members of Congress have raised concerns that such a pause may be retroactive or anti-regulatory. This fact sheet sets the record straight.

Myth: The pause prevents states from protecting consumers from AI-related harms.

Facts:
  1. The pause does not restrict states from enforcing laws that protect consumers. In fact, most consumer-focused laws (age verification, parental consent mechanisms, content moderation policies, and transparency requirements) regulate how platforms behave, not how AI models are designed.
  2. Under the pause, these conduct-based rules remain fully enforceable.
  3. The only restrictions apply narrowly to laws that attempt to directly control the architecture, design, or training of AI models themselves.
Why This Matters: Consumer protection doesn’t stop with the pause—it’s clarified and preserved. State leaders can still pursue meaningful safeguards for families, children, and vulnerable communities without triggering federal consequences. By distinguishing between regulating AI outcomes and AI design, the pause ensures consumer safety without stifling national innovation.

Myth: The pause would retroactively overturn or repeal laws that states have already enacted.

Facts:
  1. The proposal does not repeal or invalidate any state laws that are already in effect.
  2. It applies only to laws or rules not yet implemented, not those already active.
  3. Many AI-related state laws include delayed effective dates (e.g., Jan 1, 2026); the pause simply freezes their rollout, not their passage.
Why This Matters: A pause avoids a confusing and contradictory legal landscape that undermines interstate commerce and complicates compliance for developers and consumers alike.

Myth: The federal preemption is unconstitutional or infringes on state sovereignty.

Facts:
  1. Congress has clear authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate technologies like AI that operate across state lines.
  2. The pause is not punitive and does not override state sovereignty. States still have room to legislate AI development and deployment.
  3. Even in the absence of congressional action, states must still respect constitutional guardrails and should focus on policing harmful use within their markets, not governing a national AI market.
  4. Courts have consistently upheld federal action that temporarily pauses or delays rule implementation for purposes of national consistency and fairness.
Why This Matters: AI development, deployment, and use cross state lines and international borders. Only federal coordination can preserve the integrity of the U.S. innovation economy while upholding civil rights and consumer protections.

Myth: Companies are trying to avoid regulation altogether.

Facts:
  1. The pause is not about avoiding regulation. Under the federal pause, states can still pass laws facilitating AI development and deployment.
  2. AI innovation is not just driven by trillion-dollar firms. It’s being led by startups and innovators across the country. A regulatory patchwork could crush these businesses before they even get off the ground.
  3. A national framework developed thoughtfully during the pause would better balance safety, rights, and economic opportunity.
Why This Matters: Senators have a responsibility to ensure regulation is effective, not duplicative, and that it doesn’t entrench the largest incumbents at the expense of smaller players.

Myth: States need to act because Congress has moved too slowly.

Facts:
  1. The pause gives federal and state stakeholders time to collaborate, not compete, on sensible regulation.
  2. If states go forward without guidelines, they’ll set a precedent of inconsistent rules that create legal uncertainty and disincentivize new investment.
  3. Several leading agencies, including NIST, the FTC, and OSTP, are already building the tools needed for strong national AI oversight.
Why This Matters: The Senate has the tools, jurisdiction, and ability to lead on AI. A pause is not a delay in action. It is a strategic alignment of national policymaking and market readiness.

Myth: The pause is a win for Big Tech at the expense of Little Tech.

Facts:
  1. A national pause helps protect the next generation of American entrepreneurs.
  2. The burdens of compliance fall hardest on Little Tech: startups and mid-sized companies building new AI tools with limited legal resources. Startups have fewer resources they can devote to navigating a complex state-by-state patchwork, while Big Tech companies have hundreds or thousands of lawyers they can devote to the task.
  3. Compliance costs for a single state law can be a barrier to market entry, especially for startups, academic projects, and entrepreneurs.
Why This Matters: If we want AI leadership to come from every state, we must give small companies the regulatory clarity and stability they need to compete.

Bottom Line

A temporary federal pause on state AI regulation is not about deregulation or overreach—it is a measured and constitutional step to ensure Congress leads with a framework that promotes fairness and competition while allowing states to continue to police harmful conduct within their borders. Without this pause, we risk stifling the very innovation that makes American AI a global leader.
Join Us