Six months after President Trump warned states not to regulate artificial intelligence, lawmakers across the country are pressing ahead with targeted rules. Congress has stalled on a national framework, leaving states to scrutinize how chatbots interact with children, how employers use AI systems, and what developers must do to prevent AI-driven catastrophes.
State lawmakers have stepped back from earlier, wider-ranging attempts to regulate AI that were vetoed or derailed by governors who viewed the measures as too onerous. They are returning with legislation that is more focused and often probes corners of life where Americans interact with AI but may not know it.
Presidential power versus state power
Trump's move to restrain state actions on AI drew criticism from members of both parties and civil liberties groups. They worried that banning state regulation would amount to a gift to AI giants who enjoy little oversight. Trump has made AI a top national and economic security priority, saying that letting states clutter the regulatory playing field is too risky in the race with China for AI superiority.
His executive order directed the attorney general to create a task force to challenge state laws that are more than "minimally burdensome" and threatened to restrict funding from certain grant programs for states with AI laws. The White House said it wouldn't target state laws that seek to prevent fraud and protect consumers and children. In a statement, it said the Trump administration is "eager to work with partners" to enact its policy framework. The White House has given no indication that it has made good on its threat to go to court against a state's AI law or withhold money.
States largely unrestrained by Trump
Trump's executive order didn't seem to discourage states from trying to regulate how AI is used. More bills have been introduced this year than last, including by Republicans, according to Justine Gluck, policy director of the Future of Privacy Forum. In Illinois, legislation piggybacked on elements of laws passed last year in California and New York that require developers of large advanced AI models to create protocols to prevent catastrophes such as a biological weapons attack or large-scale hack.
Illinois added a requirement that AI developers must get an independent auditor to review whether they are complying with their own policies. The bill's sponsor, Democratic state Sen. Mary Edly-Allen, brushed aside Trump's threat. "I don't know if you've met Illinois, but we're pretty independent," Edly-Allen told the Associated Press. The bill drew nearly unanimous support, signaling a willingness by members of Trump's party to cooperate with Democrats in filling the AI regulatory vacuum left by the federal government. This kind of legislation is expected to expand to other states.
Regulating chatbots, especially for children
A growing number of states are imposing restrictions on how AI chatbots can interact with people, especially children. A mix of Republican- and Democratic-led states have passed such laws this year, including Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska and Oregon. In many cases, states want companies to tell people when they are interacting with AI instead of a human and want chatbots restricted in how they interact with minors. Parents should have control over their child's access, and data given to chatbots must be kept private.
In recent weeks, Connecticut enacted provisions for companion chatbots that sustain an ongoing relationship with a human. Under them, a chatbot must not be able to interact with someone under 18 unless it is programmed against encouraging self-destructive behavior and provides parents with tools to manage the child's use.
Transparency in AI and decision-making
In California, lawmakers are advancing the "No Robo Bosses Act of 2026" to prohibit employers from relying solely on AI to fire or discipline workers. The state is also expanding how it regulates AI chatbots, including banning chatbot outputs to children from being used for advertising. Colorado in May required companies that deploy AI systems in important areas such as employment, education, housing or banking to tell people when AI is being used to influence a decision made about them.
It was a stab at regulating what researchers say is the bias inherent in AI systems that sort through a consumer's data and render consequential decisions - including who gets hired, a home loan or medical care. But it watered down a 2024 law aimed at preventing AI's penchant to discriminate, amid pressure from Democratic Gov. Jared Polis. For policy makers navigating this shifting terrain, an AI Learning Path for Policy Makers provides context on the technology underpinning these debates.
In Connecticut, lawmakers required employers who are using employment-related AI systems to tell employees or job applicants that they are interacting with AI. Meanwhile, Connecticut, Washington and Utah required AI developers to embed data into digital content that will allow users to determine whether the content - such as photos or video - has been created or altered by AI. More laws are possible this year.
Some Republican-led states hold back
In Florida, the state House refused to advance what Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis called his AI "Bill of Rights" legislation. It included provisions to give parents control over their children's access to companion chatbots and to require companies that use chatbots to tell consumers when they are interacting with AI. Florida House Speaker Daniel Perez, a Republican, said Trump had made it clear that the federal government should be in charge of AI regulation. DeSantis panned that idea, noting that the federal government isn't acting.
In Utah, progress stalled on legislation modeled on laws in New York and California after the White House sent a one-sentence memo to lawmakers there to warn that it was "categorically opposed" to the bill.
Why this matters for government professionals
The accelerating patchwork of state AI laws creates immediate compliance challenges for government agencies and contractors operating across multiple jurisdictions. With federal preemption stalled and Republican leaders increasingly split, public-sector professionals must track divergent rules on chatbot transparency, employment decisions, and AI auditing requirements that now vary from Illinois to Connecticut. The trend points toward more, not fewer, state-level interventions in the near term, regardless of executive branch pressure. For those working in AI for Government, understanding this fragmented regulatory environment is now a core operational requirement.
Your membership also unlocks:
