The State of AI Legislation
New York Plants Its Flag
In one corner, we have New York. Governor Kathy Hochul, in a move that’s either brave or breathtakingly naive, has signed the Responsible AI Safety and Education (Raise) Act. This isn’t some toothless resolution urging companies to “be nice.” It’s legislation with real teeth.
The Raise Act targets the big players—any company pulling in over $500 million in annual revenue. It demands they implement robust safety procedures to prevent “critical harm” from their AI models. The real kicker? If one of these critical incidents occurs, they have just 72 hours to report it. Let me repeat that: 72 hours. In the world of corporate bureaucracy and legal reviews, that’s the equivalent of a nanosecond.
A Patchwork Quilt of Rules
This is where the chaos begins. New York’s aggressive timeline makes California’s own AI safety law, which gives companies a comparatively leisurely 15 days to report issues, look like a pleasant stroll in the park. These emerging AI legislation conflicts are creating a nightmarish compliance landscape for any technology company operating across the United States.
Imagine trying to build a national railway system where every single state has a different track gauge. That’s essentially what’s happening with AI regulation. It’s an unworkable, inefficient mess that forces companies to either adopt the strictest rule everywhere—a costly proposition—or navigate a labyrinth of contradictory local laws. Neither option is good for business or innovation.
The Feds Strike Back
Trump’s Digital Manifest Destiny
And in the other corner, weighing in with the full force of the federal government, is a potential Trump AI policy. A recent executive order, dated December 11, makes Washington’s position crystal clear: when it comes to AI, the feds are in charge. Period.
To enforce this, the order establishes a new group with a title straight out of a political thriller: the AI Litigation Task Force. Housed within the Department of Justice, its one and only job is to challenge and dismantle state-level AI regulations. The message to governors like Hochul is blunt: stand down, or we’ll see you in court. This sets a collision course for a major legal showdown over regulatory jurisdiction.
The Constitution as a Crowbar
The legal justification for this federal power grab is a particularly muscular interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s Dormant Commerce Clause. As explained in a detailed Gizmodo analysis, this clause is typically used to stop states from creating protectionist laws that harm interstate commerce.
However, the Trump administration’s argument, according to legal experts, stretches this principle to its limit. They contend that in a national, interconnected market like AI, any state regulation is an undue burden that the federal government has the right to preempt. It’s less a legal argument and more a declaration of ultimate authority.
Comparing State and Federal Approaches
Speed vs. Control
What we’re seeing are two fundamentally different philosophies. New York’s law is about speed and accountability. It’s a direct response to public anxiety about AI safety, focused on forcing companies to react quickly when things go wrong.
The federal approach, by contrast, is all about control and uniformity. The White House isn’t necessarily arguing for less regulation, but for a single, federally mandated framework. The logic, which one might read about in a deep dive from an analyst like Ben Thompson at Stratechery, is that a unified market is more efficient and predictable for the massive corporations that drive the economy.
The Lawyers Are Circling
So, how are businesses supposed to operate in this legal no-man’s land? The short answer is: with great difficulty and a lot of expensive lawyers.
A company like Microsoft or Google now faces a dilemma. Do they re-engineer their global compliance systems to meet New York’s 72-hour deadline for every incident, everywhere? Or do they create a bespoke, state-by-state system that risks tripping over conflicting rules? The former is a logistical nightmare; the latter is a legal minefield. Either way, the only clear winners are the law firms billing by the hour.
The Future of AI Policy in the U.S.
A Legal Battle Royale
This isn’t going to be resolved over a polite phone call. The clash between state vs federal AI policy is heading directly for a massive legal battle that will likely go all the way to the Supreme Court. The outcome is anything but certain. While the current court has shown a willingness to centralise power in some areas, arguments for states’ rights remain politically potent.
This protracted uncertainty is poison for the tech industry. Venture capitalists and founders, the sort of people Marc Andreessen urges to “build,” despise regulatory ambiguity. It freezes investment and stifles the very innovation everyone claims to want. While politicians fight over who holds the steering wheel, the car itself may well grind to a halt.
Conclusion: So, Who’s Actually in Charge?
We are witnessing the chaotic birth of AI governance, and it’s messy. New York has made a bold, arguably necessary, move to protect its citizens. The federal government has responded with an equally bold power play to assert its dominance. In the middle are the companies trying to build the future and the public who will have to live in it.
This regulatory civil war raises a critical question that goes far beyond tech. Who do you trust to set the rules for the powerful algorithms that are increasingly shaping our world? The government in your state capital, or the one in Washington D.C.? And more importantly, does either of them have a deep enough understanding of this technology to get it right? What are your thoughts on this unfolding situation?
