[urgent] Americans: call your Senators and tell them you oppose AI preemption
By Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸, Felix De Simone @ 2025-05-15T01:57 (+167)
Americans, we need your help to stop a dangerous AI bill from passing the Senate.
What’s going on?
- The House Energy & Commerce Committee included a provision in its reconciliation bill that would ban AI regulation by state and local governments for the next 10 years.
- Several states have led the way in AI regulation while Congress has dragged its heels.
- Stopping state governments from regulating AI might be okay, if we could trust Congress to meaningfully regulate it instead. But we can’t. This provision would destroy state leadership on AI and pass the responsibility to a Congress that has shown little interest in seriously preventing AI danger.
- If this provision passes the Senate, we could see a DECADE of inaction on AI.
- This provision also violates the Byrd Rule, a Senate rule which is meant to prevent non-budget items from being included in the reconciliation bill.
What can I do?
Here are 3 things you can do TODAY, in order of priority:
- (5 minutes) Call and email both of your Senators. Tell them you oppose AI preemption, and ask them to raise a point of order that preempting state AI regulation violates the Byrd Rule.
- Find your Senators here.
- Here’s an example of a call:
“Hello, my name is {YOUR NAME} and I’m a resident of {YOUR STATE}. The newest budget reconciliation bill includes a 10-year ban pre-empting state AI legislation without establishing any federal guardrails. This is extremely concerning to me – leading experts warn us that AI could cause mass harm within the next few years, but this provision would prevent states from protecting their citizens from AI crises for the next decade. It also violates the Byrd Rule, since preempting state AI regulation doesn’t impact federal taxes or spending.
I’d like the Senator to speak out against this provision and raise a point of order that this provision should not be included under the Byrd Rule.”
See here for sample call + email templates.
- (10+ minutes) Call and email Senators on the Budget Committee. This committee is front & center of the budget reconciliation bill – they need to hear from us.
- Find committee members here. Contact as many as you have time for.
- You can contact members even if you’re out-of-state – just tell them you’re a concerned citizen, and you’re reaching out because of their role on the Budget Committee.
- Ask them to call a point of order about the Byrd Rule because this proposed ban is not budget-related.
- See here for sample call + email templates.
- (5 minutes) Call and email Senate leadership with the same message.
- John Thune (Majority Leader): (202) 224-2321; Email Form
- Chuck Schumer (Minority Leader): (202) 224-6542; Email Form
- Lindsey Graham (Budget Committee Chair): (202) 224-5972; Email Form
Mark your calendar to call your Senators every day – don’t let up until this insane provision has been removed.
Together, we can make the world a safer place.
LeahC @ 2025-05-15T20:16 (+39)
Sharing some context about where we are, since coverage has really blown up since the provision was added. I am not working on this specific issue, so I can comment here:
- At the time of posting, this provision had just made it through House E&C, and has not made it through the House Budget Committee markup, which is responsible for putting together the consolidated bill. Their markup is scheduled for tomorrow, May 16; any person or organization can email a statement for the record before COB May 19.
- In E&C markup, House Republicans acknowledged the Byrd Rule concern and argued that it was a necessary measure to safeguard the attached investment into modernizing federal IT infrastructure. I am not sure if that is enough, but they are aware and plan to get around it.
- If it makes it through and gets flagged by the Parliamentarian, Sen. Thune (Majority Leader) has been publicly clear about two relevant points: (1) he is against overruling the parliamentarian, and (2) his team has been in consistent conversations with her regarding relevant parts of this bill.
For people who are going to reach out, I would focus on substantive concerns about the provisions, which may be effective even with states' rights-focused conservatives. Getting daily calls about parliamentary procedure may or may not change any minds. I promise even the proponents are aware of those hurdles.
Will Aldred @ 2025-05-19T20:24 (+11)
Relevant reporting from Sentinel earlier today (May 19):
Forecasters estimated a 28% chance (range, 25-30%) that the US will pass a 10-year ban on states regulating AI by the end of 2025.
28% is concerningly high—all the more reason for US citizens to heed this post’s call to action and get in touch with your Senators. (Thank you to those who already have!)
(Current status is: “The bill cleared a key hurdle when the House Budget Committee voted to advance it on Sunday [May 18] night, but it still must undergo a series of votes in the House before it can move to the Senate for consideration.”)
Matrice Jacobine @ 2025-05-15T08:42 (+9)
Non-American here: how is this constitutional? Isn't the whole point of US federalism to not allow that kind of law to exist?
NunoSempere @ 2025-05-15T11:09 (+10)
It's a great question. I looked into it a few weeks ago:
In the current political praxis of the United States, there are various workarounds that the government can pursue in order to take illegal or unconstitutional actions. Examples of such actions that previous administrations have taken include keeping prisoners in Guantanamo Bay in order to delay habeas corpus petitions, conditioning highway funding to force state compliance, and torturing the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution to regulate local matters. The point is that the US has some constitutional guarantees, but the mechanisms to protect the citizens from the government are imperfect and typically involve slow remedies. And requiring federal employees to defer to the President’s interpretation of the law—presumably when they believe that the administration is doing something illegal—weakens those checks and balances.
via Sentinel minutes.
David Mathers🔸 @ 2025-05-15T12:43 (+5)
A bit of a tangent in the current context, but I have slight issues with your framing here: mechanisms that prevent the federal government telling the state governments what to do are not necessarily mechanisms that protect individuals citizens, although they could be. But equally, if the federal government is more inclined to protect the rights of individual citizens than the state government is, then they are the opposite. And sometimes framing it in terms of individual rights is just the wrong way to think about it: i.e. if the federal government wants some economic regulation and the state government doesn't, and the regulation has complex costs and benefits that work out well for some citizens and badly for others, then "is it the feds or the state government protecting citizen's rights" might not be a particularly helpful framing.
This isn't just abstract, historically in the South, it was often the feds who wanted to protect Black citizens and the state governments who wanted to avoid this under the banner of state's rights.
NunoSempere @ 2025-05-16T10:08 (+3)
Agree that the framing is imperfect but as you say your point is a tangent
Matrice Jacobine @ 2025-05-15T16:53 (+3)
This isn't just abstract, historically in the South, it was often the feds who wanted to protect Black citizens and the state governments who wanted to avoid this under the banner of state's rights.
This is exactly what I was thinking about. I thought this was the reason why the civil rights movement was heavily reliant on the constitutional amendments passed during Reconstruction.
Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 @ 2025-05-15T19:17 (+4)
What is your point? In this case Congress is showing no interest in AI regulation and is heavily lobbied by AI labs and related defense contractors, but state legislatures can act as a check on this, as the federalist system intended.
NunoSempere @ 2025-05-16T10:09 (+2)
I agree that emphasizing the virtues of federallism is good in general and also in this particular case :)
Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 @ 2025-05-15T19:13 (+2)
- Who framed it in terms of individual rights?
- In animal welfare, federal preemption is usually about powerful lobbies (animal ag, pesticides) wanting control and having more influence at the federal level. That’s the closer analogy in this case— AI company lobbies want to have a bottleneck they control. If Congress passes federal AI regulation, it can always preempt state-level regulation. What that provision says is states can’t regulate AI and there’s no federal proposal for doing so instead.
David Mathers🔸 @ 2025-05-16T12:26 (+2)
"Who framed it in terms of individual rights?"
Nuno did. I'm not criticizing you or suggesting this legislation is other than bad.
Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 @ 2025-05-15T19:19 (+1)
That has nothing to do with this? The federal government has a right to pass laws at the federal level to preempt state levels laws. There’s a procedural problem with this one (violates Byrd Rule) but we are asking people to tell their Senators they oppose it because of the content.
Larks @ 2025-05-15T21:09 (+6)
It is the commerce clause interpretation that gives the federal government the right to regulate in this fashion. (Though I would point to Wickard v. Filburn as being the key case, rather than Gonzales v. Raich). The federal government doesn't have the right to do whatever it likes, it has certain enumerated constitutional powers - Wickard v Filburn and a couple of similar cases are where they decided to interpret those enumerated powers very broadly and give themselves the almost unlimited power they have today.
I agree the discussion of Guantanamo is a distraction.
Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 @ 2025-05-15T19:25 (+4)
There’s nothing special going on here— higher levels of government prevail if laws at two different levels conflict. The federal government has the right to regulate AI in a way that preempts state level governance: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/preemption
We are asking people to tell their Senators not to allow this provision to pass because it means choking out the best hope for AI regulation given Congress’s lack of interest/heavy AI industry lobbying. It’s not offering any federal level regulation— just making it so the states can’t implement any of their own.
Chakravarthy Chunduri @ 2025-05-15T10:26 (+4)
It doesn't seem like the current administration cares about legality or anything, but I'm guessing that the Commerce Clause broadly empowers the US Congress (i.e; the US "Parliament") to regulate at the federal level anything that 'impacts' inter-state commerce in any way. But apparently this AI provision runs afoul of the "Byrd rule" in this specific instance, because regulating AI is not part of the budget reconciliation process and therefore cannot be a part of a budget bill.
I'm guessing that the legalese doesn't really matter, this is just a banally routine way to provoke political theater so that Republicans can claim that Democrats are holding up the budget bill and paralyzing the country and/or distract from the controversy on Medicaid healthcare budget cuts.
Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 @ 2025-05-15T19:21 (+6)
There’s nothing special going on here— higher levels of government prevail if laws at two different levels conflict. The federal government has the right to regulate AI in a way that preempts state level governance: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/preemption
We are asking people to tell their Senators not to allow this provision to pass because it means choking out the best hope for AI regulation given Congress’s lack of interest/heavy AI industry lobbying. It’s not offering any federal level regulation— just making it so the states can’t implement any of their own.
TFD @ 2025-05-19T11:43 (+3)
how is this constitutional?
To me it seems like the natural answer is the supremacy clause. The Wikipedia article on federal preemption lists this as the constitutional basis. Seems relatively buttoned up. I also don't think this is anything unique to AI, my impression is "preemption" is a well understood thing that, its not some new crazy thing being done for the first time here.
James De Ricco @ 2025-05-21T23:42 (+5)
The provision with the AI regulation ban is in SEC. 43201: Artificial intelligence and information technology modernization initiative, subsection (c) of the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act." I confirmed that it is in the May 20, 2025 version of the bill, the most recent version at GovTrack as of the date of this writing.
Links:
Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 @ 2025-05-15T02:05 (+5)
You can share this information in tweet form: https://x.com/pauseaius/status/1922828892886401431