House Republicans Introduce Bill to Block State AI Rules Until 2035, Intensifying Partisan Divide Over Regulation

A last minute addition by the House Republicans to a federal budgetary bill could considerably reshape the landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) in the United States. The controversial provision, buried in the reconciliation package, prohibit any local state or government from promulgating or applying laws that regulate AI systems or automated decision -making technologies for the next ten years, unless the law specifically facilitates its deployment or functioning.

If it is adopted, legislation would not only invalidate the laws at the level of the state currently aimed at limiting algorithmic biases and discrimination, but this would also prevent states from introducing new rules until at least 2035.

The insertion of the provision – simply 48 hours before the bill was marked by the Chamber Energy and Trade Committee – has drawn strong heating from consumer defenders, legal experts and a bipartite group of state prosecutors. But beyond the legal ramifications, the movement highlights an ideological rinsing deepening in Washington on how to manage rapid progression technology that transforms everything, from employment for the distribution of benefits.

A republican vision: deregulate, deploy, dominate

Supporters of the provision, mainly Republicans, argue that AI regulatory patchwork at the state level will stifle innovation, will burdens companies and threaten American competitiveness in the AI ​​global breed. For them, federal pre -emption is a means of ensuring a coherent national approach adapted to companies which allows technological companies to innovate without being slowed down by what they consider as too zealous or modeologically state legislation.

The deregulating position recalls the first actions of the Trump administration to dismantle the railing placed on the AI. Upon his return to the office, President Donald Trump immediately revoked an executive decree of the Biden era which had established preliminary federal directives for the development and deployment of AI. The administration has clearly indicated that it considers the regulation of the AI, in particular at the level of the state, such as a roadblock, not a necessity.

This point of view is strongly influenced by the interests of companies and key figures in the technological industry that supported Trump or aligned with its program. One of the most prominent is Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur and the early co -founder of Openai, who publicly fell for what he calls “left bias” in AI models.

Musk, now owner of X (formerly Twitter) and head of several companies strongly invested in AI, including XAI, accused Openai Chatpt and Google Gemini of being “awake” and serving a “left agenda”. He has repeatedly warned that these AI systems are formed to push progressive values ​​while censor conservative points of view.

“The most important thing in AI formation is that it is rigorously truthful. It is very, very important, essential,” said Musk, saying that the main generative models reflect the liberal orthodoxy of Silicon Valley rather than political neutrality.

Musk’s criticisms found a receptive audience among the Republicans who were more and more framed by AI like another front in the broader cultural war, arguing that, without limits, the tools of AI are likely to become vehicles for “leftist indoctrination” rather than neutral technologies.

A democratic vision: regulation, transparency, responsibility

The Democrats, on the other hand, put pressure for stronger protections of consumers, transparency and mechanisms of attenuation of biases as IA systems proliferate. Algorithmic renting tools for hiring software that filters candidates based on unverifiable data, Democrats argue that these systems can reproduce and even amplify societal biases – unless regulators are interviewed.

Several States governed by Democrats have already decided to impose railings. In California, laws now force companies to inform patients when generating AI is used in health care communications. In New York, employers using automated job tools must carry out annual biases. Illinois has legislation governing how facial recognition can be used in monitoring the workplace.

But if the bill on the reconciliation of the chamber is adopted with the pre -emptive clause of the intact AI, these laws at the level of the state would become inapplicable, which made the alarm among the defenders of civil rights and the state officials.

“This bill is a radical and reckless attempt to protect some of the largest and most powerful societies in the world – from Big Tech monopolies to Realpage, Unitedhealth Group and others – of all kinds of responsibility,” said Lee Hepner, main legal advisor to the American Economic Liberties project.

The impact of the real world of unregulated AI systems is already felt. A coalition of state -of -the -art prosecutors recently brought an action against Realpage, a real estate technology company accused of collusion with owners to artificially raise rents using an algorithmic pricing tool. Another company, Saferent, recently regulated a collective appeal filed by black and Hispanic tenants who say they are refused apartments on the basis of secret scores generated by AI.

Despite these concerns, the House Republicans seem determined to block what they consider to be overcoming liberal states. The bill would block not only future regulations, but would erase a lot of many that are already in place, effectively freeing AI monitoring at a time when the use of technology explodes between industries.

An imminent Battle of the Senate

The battle is far from over because the measure could resist the Senate, where the Democrats have a thin majority. Since the provision has been added to a reconciliation bill – a legislative vehicle reserved for budgetary issues – Prayer rules can prohibit its inclusion. Under the Byrd rule, non -budgetary provisions may be approved by the bills of reconciliation if they are deemed foreign.

“I do not know if it will adopt the byrd rule,” said senator John Cornyn, R-Texas, referring to a provision that requires that all parties of a budgetary reconciliation bill, as GOP PLANConcentrate mainly on budgetary issues rather than the objectives of general policy.

“It looks like me a change of policy. I will not speculate on what the parliamentarian will do, but I think he is unlikely to do it,” said Cornyn.

If the bill becomes written, it would create a federal freezing on AI regulation, just as experts say that the next decade will determine whether AI serves public interest or strengthens inequality. Many consider the fight against this provision as a decisive test on how the American government intends to manage technological changes and which is ready to protect in the process.