President Donald Trump’s artificial intelligence policy is creating a significant rift within the Republican Party, as several prominent GOP figures challenge his administration’s efforts to restrict state-level AI regulation. In December, Trump signed an executive order aimed at implementing “preemption” — a policy that would prevent states from enacting their own AI laws. The executive order directs the Department of Justice to establish a litigation task force that will sue states with “onerous” AI laws and potentially withhold federal funding from non-compliant states.
Trump and his AI and crypto czar, venture capitalist David Sacks, argue that uniform federal regulation is essential to winning the AI race against China, claiming that tech companies shouldn’t be burdened with complying with 50 different state regulations. However, this position has met fierce resistance from key Republican leaders who view it as federal overreach and a violation of states’ rights.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a former 2024 GOP primary opponent of Trump, has been particularly vocal in his opposition. He characterized federal efforts to curtail state AI regulation as “a subsidy to Big Tech” and argued that denying people the ability to govern AI technologies through self-government constitutes federal overreach. DeSantis expressed confidence that Florida’s AI laws would withstand any federal challenge.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia admitted to inadvertently voting for an initial version of Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” without realizing it contained AI preemption provisions. She later stated she was “adamantly OPPOSED” to stripping states of their right to regulate AI, calling it a violation of states’ rights. Greene’s opposition to Trump’s AI policy contributed to her eventual resignation from Congress in January after Trump called her a “traitor.”
Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Trump’s former White House Press Secretary, led a coalition of 17 Republican governors opposing AI preemption in the “Big Beautiful Bill.” That version would have imposed a 10-year wholesale ban on state-level AI regulation. Sanders wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that Congress’s proposal to strip states of their right to regulate AI was “the antithesis of what our founders envisioned.”
Other critics include Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, who advocates for allowing states to “try out different regimes” for AI oversight, and Utah Governor Spencer Cox, who called for an alternative approach that would “safeguard our kids, preserve our values, and strengthen American competitiveness” while allowing states to protect children and families.
Key Quotes
The rise of AI is the most significant economic and cultural shift occurring at the moment. Denying the people the ability to channel these technologies in a productive way via self-government constitutes federal government overreach and lets technology companies run wild.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis wrote this on X in November while opposing efforts to add an AI regulation moratorium to the annual defense bill. His statement frames AI regulation as a fundamental question of democratic governance and warns against allowing tech companies unchecked power.
I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene posted this on X after discovering she had voted for legislation containing AI preemption provisions without realizing it. Her admission highlights how AI policy provisions have been inserted into broader bills, sometimes without full transparency to lawmakers.
That Congress proposes to strip away the right of any state to regulate AI is the antithesis of what our founders envisioned when they established our federal system.
Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders wrote this in a Washington Post op-ed opposing the AI moratorium in Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill.’ As Trump’s former Press Secretary, her opposition carries particular weight and demonstrates how deeply the federalism principle resonates among Republican governors.
An alternative AI executive order focused on human flourishing would strike the balance we need: safeguard our kids, preserve our values, and strengthen American competitiveness.
Utah Governor Spencer Cox posted this on X in December as Trump prepared to sign his AI executive order. Cox’s statement attempts to find middle ground, acknowledging the need for American AI competitiveness while emphasizing the importance of protecting children and preserving state authority.
Our Take
This GOP rebellion reveals a fundamental tension in conservative AI policy that will likely intensify as artificial intelligence becomes more powerful and pervasive. Trump’s approach prioritizes technological supremacy and economic competitiveness, viewing regulatory fragmentation as a handicap in the global AI race. His critics, however, see AI as too consequential to be left entirely to market forces and federal oversight.
What’s particularly striking is the caliber of opposition — these aren’t fringe figures but mainstream Republican leaders including governors and senators who typically align with Trump. Their willingness to break ranks suggests that AI governance touches on deeply held principles about federalism and local control that transcend partisan loyalty.
The irony is that both sides claim to be protecting American interests. Trump argues uniform regulation strengthens U.S. competitiveness against China; his critics contend that allowing states to experiment with different regulatory approaches is itself an American strength. This debate will likely define Republican AI policy for years to come.
Why This Matters
This internal Republican conflict over AI regulation represents a critical inflection point for how artificial intelligence will be governed in the United States. The debate pits two fundamental conservative principles against each other: free-market innovation and states’ rights. The outcome will determine whether AI companies face a patchwork of state regulations or operate under a unified federal framework.
The stakes extend far beyond partisan politics. If Trump’s preemption policy succeeds, it could accelerate AI development by reducing regulatory complexity for tech companies, potentially helping the U.S. maintain its competitive edge against China. However, it would also limit states’ ability to protect their citizens from AI-related harms, including threats to children, privacy violations, and discriminatory algorithms.
This fracture within the GOP also signals growing unease about Big Tech’s influence and the societal impacts of rapidly advancing AI technology. As AI becomes increasingly integrated into daily life — from education to healthcare to employment — the question of who has the authority to regulate it will shape the technology’s trajectory and its effects on American society for decades to come.
Related Stories
- How to Comply with Evolving AI Regulations
- Zuckerberg: White House Pressured Facebook on COVID-19 Content
- Big Tech’s 2025 AI Plans: Meta, Apple, Tesla, Google Unveil Roadmap
Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-critics-trump-ai-preemption-policy-2025-12