AI Preemption

Voted Yes on H.R. 1 (which included a 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation, but did not explicitly list it as a reason for voting for it.

Voted Yes on H.R. 1 (which included a 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation, but did not explicitly list it as a reason for voting for it.

As House Judiciary Chair, joined Speaker Johnson and Majority Leader Scalise in supporting the White House's March 2026 national AI policy framework, which calls for federal preemption of state AI laws to "beat China in the global AI race."

Claims that 50 states passing individual laws creates confusing patchworks of regulations; acknowledges that 10 years may be too long

Co-sent a letter (with Rep. Gabe Evans) to Commerce Secretary Lutnick opposing state AI laws including Colorado's SB 205 and NY's RAISE Act: "We cannot allow a patchwork of burdensome state regulations to weaken our competitive edge... Creating uniform federal standards are essential." Source: gabeevans.house.gov.

Called Georgia state leaders asking them not to pursue state-level AI legislation; said AI is a federal issue and "if each state does something different, it needs to come from the federal level"; reportedly stalled a Georgia state AI bill.

Directly stated that "[t]here needs to be federal preemption" of state AI regulation.

Asked Michael Kratsio if the lack of federal preemption is among the top three hurdles to innovation

Argues that we need a national framework instead of a patchwork of policies'; says that "We need a national framework; we don’t want a patchwork of policies on AI, especially having states like California set the agenda" in the Washington Reporter

Voted Yes on H.R. 1 (which included a 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation), and applauded the package.

Mentions that a proactive yet light-touch federal approach can harness AI's potential without stifling growth

Voted Yes on H.R. 1 (which included a 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation, but did not explicitly list it as a reason for voting for it.

A part of a group of women lawmakers urging Speaker Mike Johnson and Dem Leader Hakeem Jeffries to reject any effort to include a broad moratorium on state and local AI regulation in the NDAA

Opposes federal preemption of state AI laws; his RAISE Act would be nullified by EO 14365, which he resists.

Said that Trump's "ban on states regulating AI only serves billionaire tech CEOs.”

No summary recorded for this position.

Voted no on H.R. 1 (which included a 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation, but did not explicitly list it as a reason for not voting for it.

Opposed and voted to remove a proposed 10-year moratorium on state-level AI regulation from the "One Big Beautiful Bill" budget reconciliation package in July 2025.

Voted in favor of stripping a 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation

Voted to strike the section relating to AI preemption.

Praised the Senate's 99-1 vote to remove the 10-year state AI preemption moratorium from the original House version of the One Big Beautiful Bill, calling it a "wise" decision -- a signal he opposes broad federal preemption of state AI laws.

Argues that states should be able to adopt more stringent regulations than federal regulations

Co-sponsored the Guaranteeing and Upholding Americans' Right to Decide Responsible AI Laws and Standards (GUARDRAILS) Act which sets to repeat Trump's executive order entitled “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence” designed to establish a moratorium on state-level artificial intelligence policies

A part of a group of women lawmakers urging Speaker Mike Johnson and Dem Leader Hakeem Jeffries to reject any effort to include a broad moratorium on state and local AI regulation in the NDAA.

Voted to strike down the 10-year moratorium on state regulation of AI.

Before resigning Jan 2026; led right-flank opposition to 10-year AI moratorium in One Big Beautiful Bill, calling its removal "a huge win for federalism"; warned moratorium "strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years" and that "giving it free rein and tying states hands is potentially dangerous".

Haggard explicitly said he doesn't like the threat of pulling funding from states with AI laws, and anticipates Indiana's state-level protections will remain on the books, though he doesn't state it as a hard policy position

Has expressed concern about federal overreach in AI's use in education, but has not addressed the preemption question specifically

Said "When we talk about preemption, I would want states to be able to go farther,” to The Daily Signal, “so I would prefer to see a floor rather than a ceiling, for their ability to innovate and respond to kids online safety concerns, because the states are going to be way more nimble at addressing concerns from parents than the federal government.”

Voted to strike the section relating to AI preemption

Co-introduced the GUARDRAILS Act in March 2026, which would repeal the Trump administration's executive order establishing a national AI policy framework and block efforts to impose a moratorium on state-level AI regulation

Writes that in the absence of a robust federal framework, states should be able to regulate AI based on the needs of their communities

Voted no on H.R. 1 (which included a 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation, but did not explicitly list it as a reason for not voting for it.

Co-sponsored the Guaranteeing and Upholding Americans' Right to Decide Responsible AI Laws and Standards (GUARDRAILS) Act which sets to repeat Trump's executive order entitled “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence” designed to establish a moratorium on state-level artificial intelligence policies

Voted no on H.R. 1, One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Cruz Amendment

Led a group of women lawmakers to urge Speaker Mike Johnson and Dem Leader Hakeem Jeffries to reject any effort to include a broad moratorium on state and local AI regulation in the NDAA.

Co-sponsored the Guaranteeing and Upholding Americans' Right to Decide Responsible AI Laws and Standards (GUARDRAILS) Act which sets to repeat Trump's executive order entitled “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence” designed to establish a moratorium on state-level artificial intelligence policies

Policy platform emphasizes reversal of ban on state-level AI regulation.

Asserts that it's the right thing for Congress to have a regulatory framework at the federal level instead of all 50 states; says that Congress should work with states to adopt a framework that could easily be adopted at the federal level