Republicans eye AI moratorium, Scalise mulls NDAA language to block state rules
Republicans seem to be eyeing a different tack on AI oversight, one that might change how the tech is ruled nationwide. The party has floated a federal moratorium before, but recent chatter hints at swapping a broad pause for something more focused: stopping states from writing their own AI rules. The concern is that a jumble of state laws could slow defense projects and commercial rollout.
Some House members are now asking whether the National Defense Authorization Act - the yearly bill that funds the Pentagon - could carry that restriction. Meanwhile, the former president took to his own platform, urging Congress to set a single set of standards instead of leaving it to state legislatures. All of this points to a possible GOP effort to pull AI policy into one place, which could affect innovators, regulators and everyday users.
---
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) told Punchbowl News he’s weighing language in the NDAA that would effectively bar state AI regulations. On Tuesday, Donald Trump posted on Truth Social, asking Congress to standardize AI rules.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) told Punchbowl News he's considering adding language to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) effectively banning state AI regulations. Later on Tuesday, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social urging Congress to standardize AI regulations. "We MUST have one Federal Standard instead of a patchwork of 50 State Regulatory Regimes," he wrote.
"If we don't, then China will easily catch us in the AI race. Put it in the NDAA, or pass a separate Bill, and nobody will ever be able to compete with America." Tacking amendments onto the NDAA, which lawmakers consider a must-pass bill, is a common strategy to get legislation across the finish line at the end of the year. It's not totally clear what the new language would look like considering 99 out of 100 senators ultimately turned against the version of a five-year moratorium on state AI laws that was put to a vote this summer.
When the issue came up earlier this year, many lawmakers expressed concern about the initial 10-year term proposed for the moratorium, and the potential that language could be so broad as to cover a host of other tech regulations, including kids' online safety laws. Both red and blue states have adopted AI-related laws that could be effectively nullified if Congress were to vote to preempt or pause them. Proponents of the moratorium, including tech industry associations like NetChoice, argued that a complicated patchwork of state regulations for an early-stage industry like AI could hamper innovation and threaten US competitiveness with China.
More details on the NDAA's language are expected before the Thanksgiving holiday, with a vote on track for December, according to Politico.
Congress might finally get a grip on the AI tug-of-war, but it’s still a mess. Republicans are pushing for another moratorium, echoing a failed push earlier this year to shut down state-level rules. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise told Punchbowl News he’s eyeing language in the National Defense Authorization Act that would basically block any state AI regulations.
If that sticks, the defense bill could turn into the de facto federal cap on AI governance. Trump’s recent Truth Social rant adds presidential pressure, urging lawmakers to line up rules across the country. Still, the road to agreement looks foggy; the prior attempt fell apart, and it’s unclear whether the NDAA amendment will survive committee scrutiny or win enough bipartisan backing.
Critics warn a blanket ban could kill local experimentation, while supporters say a single set of rules is crucial for national security. I’m not sure how the proposed language will mesh with the patchwork of state initiatives, but everyone’s watching to see what sticks.
Common Questions Answered
What legislative vehicle is House Majority Leader Steve Scalise considering to block state AI regulations?
Scalise is weighing the addition of language to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would effectively prohibit individual states from enacting their own AI rules. If the amendment passes, the defense‑bill would serve as the primary vehicle for a federal ceiling on AI governance.
How does the current Republican approach to AI oversight differ from the earlier proposal for a federal AI moratorium?
Earlier Republicans floated a blanket moratorium that would pause AI development nationwide. The newer strategy shifts to a targeted approach, seeking to stop states from creating disparate regulations rather than halting all AI activity at the federal level.
What reason did former President Donald Trump give for urging Congress to adopt a single federal AI standard?
Trump argued on Truth Social that a unified federal standard is essential to prevent a fragmented patchwork of 50 state regimes, which he said would allow China to overtake the United States in the AI race. He urged lawmakers to embed this standard in the NDAA to ensure competitiveness.
Why do Republicans claim that a patchwork of state AI regulations could hinder defense projects and commercial deployment?
Republicans contend that inconsistent state rules would create legal uncertainty and compliance burdens for defense contractors and tech companies, slowing innovation and deployment. They fear such fragmentation could impede critical national‑security initiatives and give foreign competitors an advantage.