SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
technology
140+ Groups Oppose House GOP's Sweeping Ban on State AI Regulation
"Americans deserve both meaningful federal protections and the ability of their states to lead in advancing safety, fairness, and accountability when AI systems cause harm."
May 19, 2025
Demand Progress on Monday led over 140 organizations "committed to protecting civil rights, promoting consumer protections, and fostering responsible innovation" in a letter opposing U.S. House Republicans' inclusion of legislation that would ban state and local laws regulating artificial intelligence in a megabill advanced by the Budget Committee late Sunday.
Section 43201(c)—added by U.S. Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) ahead of last Tuesday's markup session—says that "no state or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this act."
"Protections for civil rights and children's privacy, transparency in consumer-facing chatbots to prevent fraud, and other safeguards would be invalidated, even those that are uncontroversial."
In the new letter, the coalition highlighted how "sweeping" the GOP measure is, writing to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), and members of Congress that "as AI systems increasingly shape critical aspects of Americans' lives—including hiring, housing, healthcare, policing, and financial services—states have taken important steps to protect their residents from the risks posed by unregulated or inadequately governed AI technologies."
"As we have learned during other periods of rapid technological advancement, like the industrial revolution and the creation of the automobile, protecting people from being harmed by new technologies, including by holding companies accountable when they cause harm, ultimately spurs innovation and adoption of new technologies," the coalition continued. "In other words, we will only reap the benefits of AI if people have a reason to trust it."
According to the letter:
This total immunity provision blocks enforcement of all state and local legislation governing AI systems, AI models, or automated decision systems for a full decade, despite those states moving those protections through their legislative processes, which include input from stakeholders, hearings, and multistakeholder deliberations. This moratorium would mean that even if a company deliberately designs an algorithm that causes foreseeable harm—regardless of how intentional or egregious the misconduct or how devastating the consequences—the company making that bad tech would be unaccountable to lawmakers and the public. In many cases, it would make it virtually impossible to achieve a level of transparency into the AI system necessary for state regulators to even enforce laws of general applicability, such as tort or antidiscrimination law.
"Many state laws are designed to prevent harms like algorithmic discrimination and to ensure recourse when automated systems harm individuals," the letter notes. "For example, there are many documented cases of AI having highly sexualized conversations with minors and even encouraging minors to commit harm to themselves and others; AI programs making healthcare decisions that have led to adverse and biased outcomes; and AI enabling thousands of women and girls to be victimized by nonconsensual deepfakes."
If Section 43201(c) passes the Republican-controlled Congress and is signed into law by President Donald Trump, "protections for civil rights and children's privacy, transparency in consumer-facing chatbots to prevent fraud, and other safeguards would be invalidated, even those that are uncontroversial," the letter warns. "The resulting unfettered abuses of AI or automated decision systems could run the gamut from pocketbook harms to working families like decisions on rental prices, to serious violations of ordinary Americans' civil rights, and even to large-scale threats like aiding in cyber attacks on critical infrastructure or the production of biological weapons."
The coalition also called out "Congress' inability to enact comprehensive legislation enshrining AI protections leaves millions of Americans more vulnerable to existing threats," and commended states for "filling the need for substantive policy debate over how to safely advance development of this technology."
In the absence of congressional action, former President Joe Biden also took some steps to protect people from the dangers of AI. However, as CNNpointed out Monday, "shortly after taking office this year, Trump revoked a sweeping Biden-era executive order designed to provide at least some safeguards around artificial intelligence. He also said he would rescind Biden-era restrictions on the export of critical U.S. AI chips earlier this month."
Today, Demand Progress and a coalition of artists, teachers, tech workers and more asked House leaders to reject a measure that would stop states from regulating AI. Read the full story by @claresduffy.bsky.social at @cnn.com
[image or embed]
— Demand Progress (@demandprogress.bsky.social) May 19, 2025 at 10:15 AM
The groups asserted that "no person, no matter their politics, wants to live in a world where AI makes life-or-death decisions without accountability... Section 43201(c) is not the only provision in this package that is of concern to our organizations, and there are some provisions on which we will undoubtedly disagree with each other. However, when it comes to this provision, we are united."
"Americans deserve both meaningful federal protections and the ability of their states to lead in advancing safety, fairness, and accountability when AI systems cause harm," concluded the coalition, which includes 350.org, the American Federation of Teachers, Center for Democracy & Technology, Economic Policy Institute, Free Press Action, Friends of the Earth U.S., Greenpeace USA, Groundwork Collaborative, National Nurses United, Public Citizen, Service Employees International Union, and more.
In a Monday statement announcing the letter, Demand Progress corporate power director Emily Peterson-Cassin blasted the provision as "a dangerous giveaway to Big Tech CEOs who have bet everything on a society where unfinished, unaccountable AI is prematurely forced into every aspect of our lives."
"Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries must listen to the American people and not just Big Tech campaign donations," she said. "State laws preventing AI from encouraging children to harm themselves, making uninformed decisions about who gets healthcare, and creating nonconsensual deepfakes will all be wiped away unless Congress reverses course."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Gift-Wrapped Favor to Big Tech': GOP Sneakily Pushes Ban on State AI Regulation
"This isn't leadership, it is surrendering to corporate overreach and abuse under the guise of 'protecting American innovation,'" said one consumer advocate.
May 13, 2025
A provision that U.S. House Republicans added to the budget reconciliation bill—unrelated to the GOP's goal of slashing Medicaid access in the legislation—represents, as one journalist said, "one of the most radical positions Republicans have taken" thus far on artificial intelligence and the regulations that experts have demanded in order to ensure the technology is used safely.
U.S. Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) added the language Sunday night ahead of a markup session Tuesday, in what appeared to be an effort to stop state governments from enforcing existing and proposed laws to protect the public from AI systems.
"No state or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this act," reads the provision.
With Congress "captured by Big Tech," saidAmerica 2.0 publisher and editor Dave Troy, "states are the only ones who can even try to regulate AI in the U.S."—but that would change under Guthrie's proposed ban.
"Now that state laws are finally starting to hold AI companies accountable for deepfake child pornography, election disinformation, AI companions targeting minors, and algorithmic abuse, Congress wants to slam the brakes?"
Under the law, state governments could be barred from using federal funds to develop oversight for AI or support any initiatives that differ from the Trump administration's stance on AI, which was on display earlier this year when President Donald Trump issued an order revoking the Biden administration's executive action to ensure the "safe, secure, and trustworthy development" of the technology.
Laws like one passed in New York in 2021 mandating bias audits for AI tools used in hiring decisions; a law in California requiring healthcare providers to disclose their use of generative AI; and another California measure that would require AI developers to document the data they use to create trainings—which could crack down on AI firms that hide their use of copyrighted material—could all be rendered unenforceable by Guthrie's proposal.
At 404 Media, Emanuel Maiberg wrote that "the AI industry has been sucking up to Trump since before he got into office," with tech mogul Elon Musk leading the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, Silicon Valley investor David Sacks appointed "AI czar," and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman appearing with Trump in January as he unveiled an AI data center development plan.
The inclusion of the AI provision in the budget reconciliation bill could limit debate on the proposal.
The House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which is chaired by Guthrie, held a full committee markup of the bill, including the AI language, on Tuesday. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), who sits on the panel and is the ranking member of the Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee, called the provision "a giant gift to Big Tech."
"This ban will allow AI companies to ignore consumer privacy protections, let deepfakes spread, and allow companies to profile and deceive consumers using AI," said Schakowsky.
The Tech Oversight Project called on Democratic lawmakers to "stand firm" against the "AI poison-pill spending bill."
Allowing the "unhinged, dangerous" measure to pass, said Public Citizen's Big Tech accountability advocate, JB Branch, would be "an outrageous abdication of congressional responsibility and a gift-wrapped favor to Big Tech that leaves consumers vulnerable to exploitation and abuse."
"States across the country, red and blue alike, have taken bold, bipartisan action to protect their citizens," said Branch. "Now that state laws are finally starting to hold AI companies accountable for deepfake child pornography, election disinformation, AI companions targeting minors, and algorithmic abuse, Congress wants to slam the brakes? This isn't leadership, it is surrendering to corporate overreach and abuse under the guise of 'protecting American innovation.'"
In the 2025 legislative session, lawmakers in at least 45 states and Puerto Rico have introduced at least 550 AI-related bills. In at least eight states proposals have focused on regulating high-risk AI systems and preventing discrimination by algorithms, and at least 19 state legislatures are considering legislation to stop corporate landlords from fixing rental prices via algorithm.
"Congress must ask itself: Will it stand with Big Tech lobbyists, or with the people it was elected to represent?" said Branch. "Because millions of constituents across the country are currently protected by state laws that would be gutted under this proposal. Public Citizen urges lawmakers to strike this reckless preemption language from the reconciliation bill and commit to advancing federal AI legislation that builds on, not bulldozes, state-level progress."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mass Media and the Spectacle of the Imperial Presidency
The revolution won’t be televised, but our national decline will be highly pixelated.
May 13, 2025
I’ve been thinking a lot about how the Trump administration has been using television, social media, and AI-generated digital graphics to advance its policies. This particular thought experiment started when my friend and I were watching the evening news. There was Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem prancing triumphantly in front of detainees in the CECOT concentration camp in El Salvador where Venezuelan immigrants had been deported. Noem was dressed to kill for the occasion with a designer outfit and a $50,000 Rolex watch. The dynamics of the event were telling. She scolded the detainees like they were 10-year olds caught smoking and, curiously, she did not target gang activity but rather illegal immigration as the cause of their plight.
The prisoners (mostly men) were naked from the waist up, packed into tiny cells, and looked like caged animals. While viewing this quasi-surreal and clearly staged event, my friend turned to me and said: “It looks like Auschwitz.” I will have to say that the unquestionable dehumanization in this image still haunts me. This spectacle alone should’ve struck some variant of fear and loathing into the minds and hearts of every American about how aspects of the immigration crisis are being handled.
Political dialogue has now largely shifted from a platform of reasoned discourse to battles of digital imagery and “optics.”
Thankfully some media pundits got the message. But, in some cases, they appeared more focused on Noem’s watch than the evocative images of dehumanizing treatment. One commenter writing in USA Today looking to win the “too much information” award noted: “The watch that she wears in the video was identified as an 18-karat gold Rolex Cosmograph Daytona, as first reported by The Washington Post, and reportedly sells for $50,000.” Good to know. The writer went on to say that “except for President Donald Trump, presidents in recent decades have opted for more modest timepieces to avoid being labeled as elitist, according to The New York Times. For example, President Joe Biden was criticized by conservative media for wearing a $7,000 watch to his inauguration.” Also good to know. Eventually, however, the writer did feel compelled to point out that “the juxtaposition of Noem’s luxury accessory and her setting was noted by critics and human rights groups.”
The Power of the Viral Photo Op
The Noem footage appeared to be little more than a calculated video-based photo op. It was apparently designed to demonstrate that the Trump administration was fulfilling its campaign promise to deal with the immigration problem. But it made me think of a larger trend. It seems that, thanks to the pervasiveness of our “global village” and how easily digital tech can be used to shape our collective thinking, political dialogue has now largely shifted from a platform of reasoned discourse to battles of digital imagery and “optics.” The poet Robert Bly has pointed out that, cognitively speaking, television images bypass the parts of the brain involved in rational processing and nest comfortably in the so-called reptile brain where raw emotion dwells, a phenomenon well understood by the advertising industry. The political analysis of Trump’s actions that surfaces in the mainstream media needs to take his admittedly skillful media manipulation into far more serious account.
To understand Trump’s control of the media (and hence the typical voter mindset) it’s helpful to look at the work of the French media theorist Guy Debord. In The Society of the Spectacle, Debord addresses the media-induced degradation of contemporary life where authentic social interactions have been replaced with their mere representation. He posits that “passive identification with the spectacle supplants genuine activity.” Here it’s worth noting that Debord was writing this well before the advent of the internet, which added yet another layer to the commodification of societal and political interaction.
The Spectacle of the “Imperial Presidency”
It was the media theorist and prophetic thinker Marshall McLuhan who pioneered the concept of the global village in the 60’s. Decades later, heightened media awareness expanded even more, wrought by a combination of television, the internet, social media, and telecommunications technologies which some refer to as the New Media. This new mediasphere has radically altered our collective awareness while subtly shaping the underpinnings of political dynamics. Its effects on polity and political outcomes are incalculable. While television viewership has been declining for some time, the images generated by television often become viral social media fodder in a kind of endless feedback loop. So, in this sense, television is still a force majeure in our perceptions of accelerating world events.
The televised debate between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy in 1960 has been cited as a political milestone. For the first time in history, the televised image may have helped elect a president. The election of a former television actor, Ronald Reagan, continued on this trajectory. An article by Matthew Wills framed it this way:
“Politics in the United States has always been a performance art,” writes Tim Raphael in his analysis of the branding and image-crafting that now dominate our political system. Throughout his eight years as president, Ronald Reagan had much more positive poll numbers (60-70%) as a person than did his actual policies (40%). Raphael attributes Reagan’s success to the potent combination of advertising, public relations, and a television in every home. (There were 14,000 TVs in America in 1947; by 1954, 32 million; by 1962, 90% of American homes plugged in.)
If Reagan plowed this territory, then Donald Trump, with his many years of experience as a Reality TV star, turned it into an art form. Trump learned to use the media to advance what historian Arthur Schlesinger called “the imperial presidency.” The New Media, in combination with the trajectory of politics as “performance art,” has accelerated this process significantly. As just one example of many, one of Trump’s recent media plays has been to allow television coverage of a two-hour Cabinet meeting. Given in historical terms that this is an unprecedented event, it seems important to ask: Where does what appears to be or is sold as “transparency” cross the line into being mere performative optics? And while the Biden presidency was characterized by Oz-like behind-the-scenes operation in terms of press conferences, speeches, and media events, Trump is quite the opposite. Many of his visits with foreign leaders are attended by the media, staged, and televised. In this sense, while there is nominally more transparency there is also the deliberate use of optics for political advantage.
It’s likely that the meme fodder of Donald Trump’s imperial presidency will only increase in frequency and intensity. This media saturation has a purpose: It creates displacement sucking up available bandwidth in both the media and our own cognitive processing. “All Trump, all the time” is a familiar trope that we will somehow have to learn to live with and correct for. Back in the day, you could spot the occasional bumper sticker that said: “Kill your television.” On one level at least, there was a certain wisdom to that. But the advent of full-blown technocracy now makes it very difficult to turn away from a kind of forced participation in the now all-pervasive digital mediasphere.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular