For years, conservatives have stood firm in defense of federalism, local control, and limited government. These principles have served as the bedrock of the movement. That’s why it is so important to apply those same ideals to the emerging debate over artificial intelligence.
Some recent legislative proposals, including one backed by Republican leadership in Congress, would prevent states from passing any AI regulations for the next 10 years. A separate plan in the Senate takes a different approach. It would tie federal broadband and AI infrastructure funding to state compliance with federal priorities on AI.
The intentions behind these efforts may be understandable, but the effect is unmistakable: They would sideline state governments and centralize AI policymaking in Washington. That is a mistake, and it’s one conservatives should take great care to avoid.
The Republican Party has long championed the idea that states should serve as laboratories of democracy. From education to energy, the argument has consistently been that government closest to the people is most accountable to them. That principle hasn’t changed, and it applies every bit as much to artificial intelligence as it does to any other issue.
States such as Texas, Tennessee, and Florida are not just hubs of innovation — they are home to voters with strong views on personal liberty, privacy, and the role of technology in public life. If those voters believe AI needs guardrails, their state leaders should be free to act without needing permission from Washington.
The Constitution supports this view. The 10th Amendment reserves all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government for the states or the people. There is no constitutional provision that allows Congress to issue a blanket prohibition on state-level regulation of a new technology, especially one as fast-moving and consequential as AI.
Supporters of a federal-first approach, including some in the Trump administration, argue that a single national standard would help prevent a confusing regulatory patchwork. That is a valid concern and one worthy of serious discussion.
But unity does not require uniformity imposed from above. In other policy areas, states have shown time and again that collaboration is possible without sacrificing sovereignty. The Uniform Commercial Code and interstate compacts offer successful models of this kind of voluntary coordination.
Instead of eliminating state authority, Congress should look for ways to encourage thoughtful cooperation through consensus rather than coercion.
This isn’t to say that there are no areas in which the federal government might have an exclusive role in regulating AI. For example, certain national security matters should be regulated by Congress or the executive branch. Interstate commerce, conducting business across state lines, is another area where Congress has the authority to regulate AI. But in many other cases, states, not the federal government, should take the lead.
The dangers posed by AI are real. Deepfakes, surveillance tools, and manipulative algorithms are already in use, and their reach is growing. If Congress chooses not to act, or needs more time to do so, states should not be left on the sidelines.
In fact, local governments may be best positioned to address specific concerns unique to their populations. Whether it is protecting biometric data, regulating the use of AI in schools, or banning AI impersonations of election officials, these are the kinds of challenges state and local officials were elected to address.
This is not about overregulation or stifling innovation. It is about ensuring that meaningful checks are in place, crafted by the governments closest to the people affected by them.
Artificial intelligence is unlike any other technology in recent history. It moves fast and holds enormous promise and risk. That is exactly why we should tread carefully when deciding who gets to set the rules.
It is entirely reasonable for federal lawmakers to seek strategic alignment on AI policy. But it is essential for conservatives to pause and ask: Are we being consistent with our principles? Are we trusting the states, or are we sidelining them?
AI PROVISION IN ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’ SPLITS REPUBLICANS
In the end, AI should not be used as an excuse to erode the structure of American self-governance. If we truly believe in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and the importance of federalism, then we must preserve the constitutional balance they built, even when the issues are new and the stakes are high.
Let’s trust the states to do what they have always done: Lead with conviction, respond to their citizens, and help shape the future.
Justin Haskins is a New York Times bestselling author, senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, and president of Our Republic.