Republicans eye AI moratorium, Scalise mulls NDAA language to block state rules
Republicans are circling a new approach to artificial‑intelligence oversight, and the move could reshape how the technology is governed across the country. While the party has long floated a federal moratorium on AI, recent discussions suggest a shift from blanket pauses to a more targeted strategy: preventing individual states from crafting their own rules. The idea has surfaced amid growing concerns that a patchwork of regulations could hinder both defense projects and commercial deployment.
Lawmakers on the House side are weighing whether the National Defense Authorization Act—a bill that funds the Pentagon each year—could serve as the vehicle for that restriction. At the same time, the former president has taken to his own platform, urging Congress to adopt a uniform set of standards rather than leaving the issue to state legislatures. The convergence of these signals hints at a coordinated push from the GOP to centralize AI policy, a development that could have far‑reaching implications for innovators, regulators and the public alike.
---
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. "W
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.
Will Congress finally settle the AI debate? Republicans are pressing for a renewed moratorium, a move that echoes a stalled attempt earlier this year to override state regulations. Scalise, the House Majority Leader, told Punchbowl News he is weighing language in the National Defense Authorization Act that would effectively block state AI rules.
If such language passes, the defense‑bill could become the vehicle for a federal ceiling on AI governance. Trump’s recent Truth Social post adds presidential pressure, urging lawmakers to standardize regulations nationwide. Yet the path to consensus remains murky; the earlier effort collapsed, and it is unclear whether a defense‑bill amendment can survive committee scrutiny or garner enough bipartisan support.
Critics argue that a blanket ban on state action may sideline local experimentation, while supporters claim uniformity is essential for national security. The outcome of these legislative maneuvers is still uncertain, and observers will be watching how the proposed NDAA language interacts with existing state initiatives.
Further Reading
- 10 More Organizations, 10 More Reasons to Oppose 10-Year AI Moratorium - U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
- Federal AI Moratorium Out, State AI Regulation Gold Rush In - Goodwin Law
- How different states are approaching AI - Brookings Institution
- California AI regulation safe after "big, beautiful bill" loses freeze - CalMatters
More in Open Source
US calls for open‑source AI models to keep pace with China in the race
The United States is sharpening its focus on open‑source artificial‑intelligence tools as a way to...
TikTok adds AI slider so users can increase or decrease AI content on platform
The short‑form video app is rolling out a new knob that sits next to its existing “Manage topics”...
Python Data Science Handbook Offers Free Practical Exercises for Data Scientists
Why do free resources still matter to data scientists in 2025? Because the skill set they promise...
Marble AI Generates Full 3D Worlds from Text, Image or Video Prompts
Why does a tool that builds entire 3D environments from a single prompt matter? For developers,...
OpenAI releases GPT-5.1 prompting guide urging completeness, consistency
OpenAI’s latest documentation for GPT‑5.1 arrives as the model rolls out to developers who have...
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.