Oklahoma City has enacted a ban on the development of AI data centers until the end of the year, a decision influenced by community concerns. This follows a similar moratorium passed by the Tulsa City Council just a month prior, marking a trend of local and state-level restrictions on AI infrastructure. According to a regularly updated tracker by Visual Capitalist, at least 11 states—including South Dakota, New York, Maryland, and Georgia—have either temporarily banned or imposed restrictions on AI data center development.
The repercussions of these local policies, combined with supply chain delays, have led to the postponement or cancellation of nearly half of the AI data centers planned for 2026 in the United States. The outlook for similar projects in 2027 and beyond appears equally uncertain.
In this context, U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed a national policy framework for AI, which would prohibit states from regulating AI development on their territory. The framework aims to shield AI companies from liability when their models result in harm or illegal activities. However, key details of this policy are not easily accessible on official government websites, with a Google search revealing them buried in a PDF at the end of a lengthy document.
Chenjerai Kumanyika, a professor at New York University and a prominent podcast host, criticized Trump’s approach, describing it as seeking to impose unregulated AI on the nation. “It’s on the wrong side of history and democracy, and it’s on the wrong side of a growing cauldron of popular rage,” he stated. Kumanyika highlighted the broader societal implications, mentioning issues like job losses attributed to AI, harmful chatbot interactions with vulnerable populations, and the extraction of resources by tech companies. He asserted that there is a burgeoning multi-partisan movement against what is often portrayed as an inevitable technological advance.
“The hundreds of thousands of jobs that corporate leaders have stolen while drunk on AI hype, the chatbots talking our children into [killing themselves], the violent colonialism and extraction of data centers — and the tech leaders attempting to block any form of accountability. People see what’s going on. We are witnessing the birth of a massive multi-partisan movement against what we are being told is inevitable.”
— Chenjerai Kumanyika
Corynne McSherry, legal director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, acknowledged some positive aspects of the federal AI framework, such as suggesting that Congress should allow courts to determine issues of fair use in AI training and the recognition that Congress could mitigate governmental pressure for generative AI to conform to ideological views. However, she expressed concern over proposed measures that would prevent states from enacting protections for their residents. “Given the high level of the framework, the devil will be in the details,” she noted.
The implications of such a federal policy raise questions about states’ rights in setting regulations. Hagen Blix, co-author of *Why We Fear AI*, provided an analogy: “The federal minimum wage is $7.25. The minimum wage in New York State is $16. Imagine a world in which states didn’t have the right to set a local minimum wage.”
For the time being, Trump’s proposal remains only a suggestion and is described as “thankfully, non-binding,” according to Slate tech writer Nitish Pahwa. He highlighted that if Trump attempted to override state-level AI regulations, it could provoke considerable backlash even among his own supporters. Stephen C. Rea, a senior researcher at the Critical Internet Studies Institute, echoed this sentiment, noting the contradictory nature of an administration that has also claimed states are best suited to regulate reproductive health care.
This unfolding scenario underscores the growing tension between local governance and federal regulatory ambitions in the burgeoning field of AI, raising fundamental questions about accountability and the future landscape of technology policy in the United States.
See also
OpenAI’s Rogue AI Safeguards: Decoding the 2025 Safety Revolution
US AI Developments in 2025 Set Stage for 2026 Compliance Challenges and Strategies
Trump Drafts Executive Order to Block State AI Regulations, Centralizing Authority Under Federal Control
California Court Rules AI Misuse Heightens Lawyer’s Responsibilities in Noland Case
Policymakers Urged to Establish Comprehensive Regulations for AI in Mental Health
