The White House on Friday urged Congress to establish comprehensive federal laws for artificial intelligence (AI), aiming to preempt what it views as burdensome state-level regulations. This legislative blueprint lays out a broad framework designed to address growing concerns about AI's impact while simultaneously fostering innovation and growth within the sector.

At the core of the White House's proposal are six guiding principles intended to shape future federal legislation. These principles focus on critical areas such as protecting children from potential harms associated with AI technologies, preventing excessive surges in electricity costs due to AI infrastructure, respecting intellectual property rights, preventing censorship, and educating American citizens on the responsible use of AI. The administration emphasizes the need for strong federal leadership to ensure public trust in AI's application in daily life.

This call for federal intervention comes amidst a burgeoning landscape of state-specific AI regulations. Four states—Colorado, California, Utah, and Texas—have already enacted laws that impose rules on the private sector's use of AI, including limiting the collection of certain personal information and mandating greater transparency from companies. However, the White House and industry stakeholders have consistently argued that a patchwork of 50 different state regulatory regimes could stifle innovation and jeopardize America’s lead in the global AI race. To counter this, former President Trump signed an executive order in December to specifically block states from crafting their own regulations, a move reiterated by White House AI czar David Sacks.

While advocating for preemption of state laws concerning AI development, the Trump administration clarifies that it does not intend to preempt all state regulatory powers. States would still be permitted to enforce general laws against AI developers to protect children, prevent fraud, and safeguard consumers. Furthermore, the framework suggests that Congress should not interfere with local authorities' decisions regarding the placement of data centers and other AI infrastructure, nor with how states procure their own AI tools for law enforcement or education. However, states "should not be permitted to regulate AI development," penalize developers for a third party's unlawful conduct using their product, or "unduly burden Americans’ use of AI for activity that would be lawful if performed without AI."

The legislative framework has garnered mixed reactions. House Republican leaders swiftly endorsed the plan, expressing readiness to collaborate "across the aisle" to pass legislation. Neil Chilson, a Republican former chief technologist for the Federal Trade Commission, suggested the framework is an attempt to build a broader consensus, covering key sticking points that might otherwise impede an AI bill. He noted its design to appeal to AI-wary Republicans and Democrats alike, particularly through its focus on bipartisan concerns such as the potential harms of AI chatbot companionship to children and the substantial electricity costs associated with AI infrastructure.

Despite this attempt at broad appeal, some Democrats have already criticized the proposal. U.S. Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, for instance, stated that the framework "fails to address key issues, including strong accountability for AI companies, under the guise of protecting children, communities, and creators." He argued that without robust protections, the AI industry risks becoming a "Wild West." Similarly, AI safety advocates, including Brendan Steinhauser of The Alliance for Secure AI, expressed concern that the framework does not adequately address the most catastrophic risks posed by AI, such as out-of-control AI agents or widespread human worker replacement, asserting that minor adjustments like "upskilling and job training is just not going to make an impact on that."

The framework also addresses the contentious issue of AI and copyright, aiming for a balanced approach. It recommends against direct federal intervention in the ongoing legal disputes between artists, creators, and technology companies that have utilized vast amounts of copyrighted material to train AI systems capable of generating new text, images, and sound. The Trump administration asserts its belief that "training of AI models on copyrighted material does not violate copyright laws" but acknowledges "arguments to the contrary exist and therefore supports allowing the Courts to resolve this issue." This stance was welcomed by the trade group AI Progress, which includes major tech companies like Amazon, Anthropic, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Midjourney, and OpenAI, all of whom are currently facing numerous copyright infringement lawsuits. While judges have often sided with AI developers based on "fair use" principles, questions surrounding the acquisition of copyrighted materials persist, as highlighted by a recent $1.5 billion settlement between Anthropic and authors alleging illegal piracy for chatbot training.

The path to passing sweeping AI legislation in both chambers of Congress is expected to be challenging, particularly in a midterm election year, given the deep public divisions over AI. The framework's ability to secure bipartisan support, including from influential Republicans like U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, who has introduced her own AI bill and previously thwarted an earlier Trump administration attempt to deter state AI regulation, will be crucial. The White House hopes that by laying out a comprehensive yet flexible blueprint, it can galvanize the necessary legislative action to ensure a consistent and innovation-friendly regulatory environment for artificial intelligence across the nation.