On December 17, 2025, a bipartisan group of 23 Attorneys General from the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the  District of Columbia, sent a comment letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) “opposing the preemption of state laws on artificial intelligence.” The letter was in response to the FCC’s notice of inquiry published in September that it would use its regulatory powers to preempt state AI laws.

The letter argues that the FCC lacks authority to preempt state law, and that such would harm state interests. The letter comes on the heels of Executive Order 14365 (EO) signed by President Trump on December 11, 2025, that requires the Secretary of Commerce to “publish an evaluation of existing State AI laws that identifies onerous laws that conflict” with the administration’s policy “to sustain and enhance the United States’ global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI” within 90 days. The EO further requires the Secretary of Commerce to issue a Policy Notice that provides “that States with onerous AI laws… are ineligible for non-deployment funds to the maximum extent allowed by Federal law.”

In opposing a proposed preemption of state AI laws, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the individual states

are on the front lines of consumer protecting, including when it comes to emerging technology….like any emerging technology, there are risks to adoption without responsible, appropriate, and thoughtful oversight. States have played a leading role in developing strong privacy and technology protections to address a wide range of harms associated with AI and automated decision-making. State authorities are often the first to receive consumer complaints and identify problematic practices and have the proximity and agility to identify emerging threats and implement innovative solutions.

The bipartisan letter to the FCC follows another effort by a bipartisan coalition of 36 state attorneys general who sent a letter to Congress in November opposing a proposed provision in the National Defense Authorization Act that would preempt state AI laws. That provision was ultimately not included in the final law. Additionally, in May 2025, there was an effort by some in Congress to propose a 10-year ban on the ability of states to enact laws related to the use of AI which also failed.

Ultimately, there will be a battle between the federal government and state legislatures over AI regulation. It is clear that the Trump administration seeks minimal regulation, despite the known risks, and state Attorneys General, charged with protection of consumers, feel very differently. I suspect we will see how it plays out in court.