Texas and the federal government are poised for a potential showdown over the state’s upcoming regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) and an executive order issued by President Donald Trump that could withhold federal funding from states that enact similar laws. The executive order, signed earlier in December, aims to cut off federal broadband funding for states that implement what it terms “onerous AI laws.”
Texas was awarded $3.3 billion in federal funding to broaden broadband access, which could be jeopardized by the enforcement of the Texas law, set to take effect on January 1, 2024. State Senator Angela Paxton, a key advocate for the regulation, emphasized the necessity of such legislation to ensure the safety of children, consumers, and the integrity of infrastructure. “I don’t think we should stop moving on our policies to protect our kids, consumers, privacy, and infrastructure the way we see fit in Texas before there is meaningful federal legislation,” Paxton stated on social media platform X. “We can’t be handcuffed by the federal government.”
Paxton, a Republican from McKinney, has previously rallied bipartisan support for state regulation of AI. In November, she spearheaded a letter signed by 16 state senators urging U.S. Senators Ted Cruz and John Cornyn to back the Texas law and reject federal encroachments on state authority. The letter warned that a federal AI moratorium could undermine vital initiatives in Texas, including efforts to combat child pornography, enhance data privacy, prevent discrimination, and hold major tech companies accountable.
Contrastingly, Senator Cruz has advocated for withholding federal funding from states that implement AI regulations, arguing such measures would hinder the deployment of AI technologies. “State regulation will strangle AI deployment,” Cruz expressed in July. During the signing of the executive order, he voiced concerns over allowing foreign values, particularly from China, to influence American AI governance, advocating instead for “American values of free speech and individual liberty.”
Brendan Steinhouser, CEO of The Alliance for Secure AI, commended Texas for making significant strides in AI policy. He cautioned that federal preemption could undermine state efforts, limiting lawmakers’ capacity to enact effective policies tailored to their constituents. “Federalism is a core constitutional principle of this country,” Steinhouser noted. “If we want to advance AI, the states need the freedom to legislate policies that protect their citizens.”
The letter from the Texas senators further argued that state governments are often more agile and responsive during crises compared to the federal government. “The states must not be handcuffed during a crisis, awaiting the federal government to do what states can and should do for themselves,” the letter stated.
Trump’s executive order seeks to prohibit state laws that conflict with federal directives and to review state regulations deemed excessive. To enforce this, the order establishes an AI Litigation Task Force within the U.S. attorney general’s office, poised to challenge state laws in court if they are seen to diverge from federal policy. However, the order does allow for exceptions concerning “child safety protections.”
This potential federal blockade of state regulations has raised alarms among the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG), which issued a letter opposing such federal dominance. The attorneys general contend that broad preemption could hamper states’ abilities to address rapidly evolving AI risks effectively. NAAG urged Congress to work collaboratively with states on developing thoughtful federal regulations instead of imposing blanket bans that could jeopardize public safety and innovation. Notably, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was not among the 36 attorneys general who signed this opposition letter.
The Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act, known as House Bill 149, lays out a comprehensive framework for governing and overseeing AI within the state. It broadly defines AI, imposes restrictions on the misuse of biometric data, and mandates that government agencies disclose consumer interactions with AI systems. Notably, the law prohibits AI applications designed to facilitate self-harm, crime, or unlawful discrimination and prevents the distribution of certain harmful or exploitative content. Additionally, it creates a statewide AI regulatory sandbox for controlled testing and establishes the Texas Artificial Intelligence Council to advise on AI policy and ethical considerations.
The unfolding conflict between Texas and the federal government not only underscores the complexities surrounding AI regulation but also highlights the divergent priorities of state and federal authorities. As the Texas law prepares for implementation, the broader implications for AI governance in the United States remain a critical issue that will likely evolve in the coming months.
See also
Taiwan Proposes AI Basic Act to Boost Regulation Amid Semiconductor Industry Growth
China Proposes Draft AI Regulations to Enhance Safety and Ethical Standards for Human-Interactive Services
China Proposes Stricter AI Regulations to Mitigate Emotional Interaction Risks
Asia-Pacific Leverages AI for $1 Trillion Economic Boost and Enhanced Regional Cooperation
