{"id":188,"date":"2026-06-04T22:40:35","date_gmt":"2026-06-04T22:40:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanindustryreview.com\/?p=188"},"modified":"2026-06-04T22:40:35","modified_gmt":"2026-06-04T22:40:35","slug":"bipartisan-ai-draft-proposes-three-year-preemption-of-state-laws","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanindustryreview.com\/?p=188","title":{"rendered":"Bipartisan AI draft proposes three-year preemption of state laws"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Another artificial intelligence regulation framework has joined the growing ranks on Capitol Hill, this time focused primarily on model safety and workforce impacts.<\/p>\n

Read more Supreme Court sides with FCC power in forfeiture process<\/a><\/p>\n

Reps. Jay Obernolte, R-Calif., and Lori Trahan, D-Mass., unveiled their long-expected framework as a discussion draft bill on Thursday. Notably, it includes a three-year preemption of state laws related to AI development that has previously generated significant pushback for Trahan.<\/p>\n

Reps. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va.;\u00a0Scott Franklin, R-Fla.;\u00a0Scott Peters, D-Calif.;\u00a0and Erin Houchin, R-Ind., all joined with Obernolte and Trahan in releasing the draft bill.<\/p>\n

The 269-page , dubbed The Great American Artificial Intelligence Act,\u00a0comes just days after President Donald Trump signed an executive order to establish voluntary federal agency reviews of new frontier AI models.<\/p>\n

[Related:\u00a0Executive order sets voluntary cyber reviews for advanced AI]<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

In a statement on the bill\u2019s release, Obernolte said it is a response to the rapid advance of a \u201ccritical technology.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThis discussion draft is an important step toward building a clear federal framework that promotes innovation, protects Americans from emerging risks, and ensures the United States continues to lead the world in AI,\u201d he said. \u201cWe are releasing this draft to hear from stakeholders, experts, and the public so we can strengthen the legislation before it is formally introduced.\u201d<\/p>\n

Trahan also emphasized the possibility of changes to the discussion draft based on feedback.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe threats AI poses to our national security, our safety, and our workforce are here and growing by the day. This bipartisan framework is designed to meet the challenges posed by this rapidly advancing technology without smothering American innovation. It protects workers, establishes real accountability for the most powerful frontier systems, and positions the United States to set the global standard on AI,\u201d Trahan said.<\/p>\n

The bill would also extend the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 through fiscal 2035. That law allows companies to share cyber threat information without incurring antitrust liability. A long-term renewal has been held up, in part by political objections to the Homeland Security Department\u2019s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.<\/p>\n

Preemption pushback<\/h2>\n

The bill would preempt state laws and regulation \u201cspecifically regulating the development\u201d of an AI model, with a three-year sunset. The bill specifies that preemption would not apply to laws related to the use or deployment of AI models.\u00a0<\/p>\n

An accompanying released by Trahan\u2019s office said that California\u2019s AB 2013 law, which \u201crequires model developers to publicly post high-level summaries of their training data\u201d would be preempted, along with a portion of California SB 942 law related to content watermarking.<\/p>\n

It also called out frontier safety laws in California, New York and Illinois, saying they would be \u201cfederalized\u201d under the bill, though the bill does not make a distinction between \u201cfederalization\u201d and \u201cpreemption.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThis will create important transparency, auditing, and whistleblower protection standards that belong and can be better implemented at the federal level. State AGs would retain authorities to enforce these standards,\u201d the document said.<\/p>\n

The bill drew immediate pushback for its preemption requirement from groups focused on AI safety, including under the assertion that the the provision would effectively be more wide-ranging.<\/p>\n

Brad Carson, president of Americans for Responsible Innovation and a former Democratic representative from Oklahoma, said preemption of state laws would be a \u201cgenerational mistake.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThis bill takes the current floor on state AI legislation and turns it into a federal ceiling, preventing state lawmakers from addressing emerging AI harms in an era of fast-moving technology,\u201d Carson said in a statement. \u201cOver the past two decades, state lawmakers have proven to be a backstop for tech accountability, fighting for families and communities even as Congress has stalled on creating guardrails.\u201d<\/p>\n

Earlier this week, ARI launched an ad campaign in Massachusetts urging Trahan \u201cto oppose a ban on state AI legislation.\u201d<\/p>\n

Read more Immigration budget bill off to a slow start in Senate<\/a><\/p>\n

Brendan Steinhauser, CEO of the safety-focused Alliance for Secure AI, praised the bill\u2019s bipartisanship and its focus on catastrophic risk and loss of control, but opposed the preemption requirement.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Great American AI Act falls short of the framework necessary to keep Americans safe from the dangers of advanced AI. It does not justify preempting states\u2019 ability to pass their own AI safeguards,\u201d Steinhauser said. \u201cA national AI standard should protect at least as much as it preempts, and states across the country have already enacted laws that do far more for Americans on issues like child safety and consumer protections than this proposal.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mandates<\/h2>\n

The bill would require large frontier developers \u2014 those with more than $500 million in gross revenue for the previous calendar year \u2014\u00a0to establish public frontier AI frameworks. The frameworks would include information on whether a model could pose a \u201ccatastrophic risk,\u201d defined by the bill as \u201ca foreseeable and material risk\u201d of death or injury of more than 50 people or more than $1 billion in property damage, and the thresholds the developer used to determine that risk.<\/p>\n

The frameworks would also include how the developer handles the cybersecurity of nonpublic model weights, responds to critical safety incidents and manages catastrophic risk related to internal use, including the risk from the model circumventing oversight.<\/p>\n

Developers would be held liable for up to $1 million per day for violations of the bill\u2019s safety requirements.<\/p>\n

Large frontier developers would be required to retain an Independent Verification Organization, licensed through the National Institute of Standards and Technology\u2019s Center for AI Standards and Innovation. The IVOs would perform semi-annual verification of the developer\u2019s compliance with the safety requirements of the bill and assess the adequacy of the developer\u2019s frontier AI framework and risk monitoring and mitigation. The results of the audit would then be submitted to CAISI.<\/p>\n

Developers that didn\u2019t comply with the audit requirements or made material misrepresentations would be liable for up to $1 million per day while the violation continued.<\/p>\n

Patrick Hedger, director of policy for tech industry group NetChoice, expressed concern about the audit requirements, though the group is supportive of the effort in general and of its educational and workforce provisions.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere are some changes we\u2019d like to work with the sponsors on, including the bill\u2019s aggressive auditing regime and data-sharing requirements for developers that could risk entrepreneurs\u2019 trade secrets and private records,\u201d Hedger said in a statement.<\/p>\n

The legislation would also formally establish CAISI in statute, previously known as the AI Safety Institute under the Biden administration, and the National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource, led by the National Science Foundation. It would require the Commerce Department to appoint a director for the center.<\/p>\n

It would task CAISI with developing \u201cguidelines, best practices, and voluntary standards\u201d to improve security measures for AI systems and evaluating U.S. and foreign AI systems, including \u201cpotential security vulnerabilities\u201d related to adopting models developed by foreign competitors.<\/p>\n

It would also authorize $100 million for each of fiscal 2027, 2028 and 2029, in addition to any fees collected through the licensing of Independent Verification Organizations. The center would also be authorized to hire \u201ccritical technical experts\u201d at higher pay levels.<\/p>\n

The bill would also terminate CAISI\u2019s authorities three years after enactment.<\/p>\n

CAISI would also be required to establish reporting mechanisms for AI critical safety incidents and catastrophic risks. Developers would be required to report incidents within 15 days of discovery and imminent risks within 24 hours. State attorneys general could also opt in to receive safety reports.<\/p>\n

Other provisions of the bill would:<\/p>\n