Congress tries to block all AI regulations for a decade. ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

[link removed]

President Trump’s budget bill grinding its way through Congress is loaded with pork and problems, as these bills tend to be. It makes millions of people ineligible for Medicaid — the biggest health care cut, ever. It preserves tax cuts for the rich. It vastly increases funding for the increasingly out-of-control ICE. It would impose heavy financial burdens on plaintiffs seeking to block illegal government actions.

All of these have gotten headlines. But some provisions quietly slipped into the dense language of this 1,000-page bill may have an impact that is deeper and wider than realized.

Here’s one to worry about: Did you know that the bill would deregulate artificial intelligence?

AI is transforming the economy, social life, and political life. Millions of jobs will be altered or eliminated. Medicine and science may be transformed. States are enacting laws governing everything from privacy to deepfakes to safety rules for driverless cars. What to do about this promising but convulsive technology is a great public policy challenge. AI may feel like a magical being with a life of its own, but AI is a choice.

This budget bill, remarkably, would ban states from setting rules for AI for a full decade, with few exceptions. It would prevent enforcement of laws limiting or regulating AI systems, AI models, and “automated decision systems.” It sounds like something ChatGPT might hallucinate, if the prompt is “write a dystopian science fiction novel, combined with a critique of K Street.”

How did that get in there? Google was feeling lucky

[link removed]

, apparently, as were Meta

[link removed]

and OpenAI

[link removed]

. They all pushed for federal policy that would grant sweeping immunity from state regulation. As it turns out, sitting among Trump’s family and cabinet picks at the inaugural has its perks.

Let us quote

[link removed]

, gulp, Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene: “I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there. We have no idea what AI will be capable of in the next 10 years and giving it free rein and tying states hands is potentially dangerous. This needs to be stripped out in the Senate.”

The truth is we don’t even fully understand the power and potential of AI — or even how it works.

One dire prognostication, AI 2027

[link removed]

, sketches a potential timeline for AI development over the next few years. (Vice President JD Vance says

[link removed]

he has read it.) It predicts a future of AI employees, AI arms races, and eventual AI takeover. “We predict that the impact of superhuman AI over the next decade will be enormous, exceeding that of the Industrial Revolution,” the authors warn.

Apple, on the other hand, recently debunked

[link removed]

the claim that we are within months of artificial “general intelligence.” Complexity leads to “a complete accuracy collapse,” its engineers report.

Dark forecasts may be wrong. But few can doubt that this technology will bring “creative destruction” on an epic scale.

Here’s one policy we at the Brennan Center know a great deal about: voting. AI has the ability to imitate election officials, candidates, and public figures

[link removed]

to fuel misinformation and influence elections. And, as more election officials incorporate AI into their work, our election systems risk becoming more biased and error-ridden and less transparent

[link removed]

.

In response, Washington veers between timidity and boosterism. President Biden imposed some rules by executive order, but Trump undid them: He appointed David Sacks, an AI investor, to guide policy. Sam Altman of ChatGPT hovers.

When the federal government is silent or paralyzed, it makes good sense for states to step forward — to be the “laboratories of experimentation” described by Justice Louis Brandeis at a time of similar technological change.

In fact, this bill’s override of the states may be illegal. The Supreme Court has said that such “preemption

[link removed]

” only occurs when it resolves a conflict between federal and state law. Faced with a technology that could lead to social and economic upheaval, the feds cannot simply refuse to act but also stop states from acting either.

Why is this cosmically consequential plan tucked into a budget bill? Because such measures only require 51 votes to pass. They are so big that party members fall in line, forced to vote up or down. In a flawed bid to pass muster under Senate budget rules, Senate Commerce Committee Republicans have suggested that the committee’s version of the moratorium would apply to states that receive funding for broadband access. (It may in fact apply to all states

[link removed]

.) Meanwhile, industry lobbyists swarm

[link removed]

.

In the early days of the internet, government chose to stand back. Regulation, it was feared, would choke off innovation. Much good came of that, of course. But now we see the harms — a political system flooded by disinformation, massive concentration of wealth, social media that worsens isolation, anger, and depression.

This time we don’t have to wait and see. The risks of legislative inattention, lobbyist prowess, and technological hubris are already in plain sight.





Condemning Political Violence

At the Brennan Center we are united in sorrow and outrage. The assassination of a top Minnesota legislator and her husband, and the wounding of another legislator and his wife, reminds us that violence — and violent rhetoric — pose growing threats to American democracy. Two in five state lawmakers surveyed have faced violent threats or attacks. This wave of abuse is poisoning our politics. Women and people of color face particular vitriol. How can we turn down the temperature? Our study released last year

[link removed]

offers some solutions.

The Federal Push to Silence Dissent

Federal agents held down and handcuffed Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) in Los Angeles last week after he tried to ask the secretary of homeland security a question. “This is not a normal or lawful use of force,” Kareem Crayton writes, calling it “the latest abuse of power by the Trump administration, which has made a practice of using government force against political opponents.” His new piece argues that silencing elected officials who speak out against the administration’s policies not only undermines their ability to serve their constituents but also violates First Amendment protections for peaceful political expression. Read more

[link removed]

How State Laws Shape Redistricting

In an effort to understand the relationship between redistricting rules and final voting maps, a new Brennan Center study examines how state laws influence whether counties get split across legislative districts. It finds that only laws requiring counties to stay intact — not those that leave the decision to map drawers — actually reduce splits. “We aim to continue this line of research and broaden our understanding of how statutory text can either give map drawers a guide out of the political thicket of redistricting or trap them in a set of conflicting criteria,” Arlyss Herzig, Peter Miller, and Gina Feliz write. Read more

[link removed]

New Jersey’s Pricey Race for Governor

Record spending by super PACs has put this year’s gubernatorial primary in New Jersey on track to be the most expensive election in the state’s history, with more than $122 million in spending. In a new analysis, Ian Vandewalker traces the high sticker price of New Jersey’s gubernatorial race back to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling. The decision “has led to runaway spending

[link removed]

by wealthy interests in federal elections, and now state races are following suit,” he writes. Read more

[link removed]

What’s Behind the LA Military Deployment

The deployment of Marines and federalized National Guard members to police protests in Los Angeles poses a serious threat to American democracy. The president’s memorandum appears to preemptively allow the deployment of federal forces anywhere there are protests against immigration raids nationwide, regardless of whether or not they are peaceful. This broad authorization suggests that the troop deployments go beyond protecting federal property or law enforcement — they are about suppressing disagreement against the government, Elizabeth Goitein says in a Just Security expert panel discussion. Watch now

[link removed]





Coming Up

VIRTUAL EVENT: The Trouble Between Trump and the States on Education Policy

[link removed]

Tuesday, July 15, 3–4 p.m. ET



President Trump has ordered cuts to the Department of Education and federal education funding, the brunt of which will fall on low-income communities. He is also demanding changes to school services and curriculums, including the elimination of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.



However, states are required by their constitutions to provide public education, and many must meet certain standards and provide student services. In cases where state obligations conflict with the administration’s orders, both state and federal judges may be called on to decide whether state law provides a xxxxxx against harmful federal policies.



Join us for a discussion with education experts moderated by State Court Report Editor in Chief Alicia Bannon. The conversation will explore how the Trump administration’s actions have affected schools, how schools are responding, and how court fights over education policy may play out. RSVP today

[link removed]



Produced in partnership with State Court Report

Want to keep up with Brennan Center Live events? Subscribe to the events newsletter.

[link removed]





News

Kareem Crayton on the plan to redraw Texas’s congressional maps // THE TEXAS TRIBUNE

[link removed]

Joseph Nunn on the legality of the troop deployment in Los Angeles // POLITIFACT

[link removed]

Marina Pino on changes to New York’s small donor public financing program // THE CAPITOL PRESSROOM

[link removed]

Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







[link removed]

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

[link removed]

View Online

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]