The article argues that a federal effort — included in a recent U.S. defense/finance bill — to block states from enacting or enforcing AI‑related laws for several years would be harmful rather than helpful. The author warns that such a moratorium would undercut regulatory predictability, reduce legal accountability, and ultimately make it harder for businesses and consumers to navigate safe, responsible AI deployment.
It explains that state‑level AI laws have emerged to address real‑world risks: algorithmic bias, privacy violations, deepfakes, and misuse of automated decision systems. Without the ability to regulate at the state level, those protections could vanish — leaving citizens vulnerable and companies without clear guardrails.
The article also highlights how a blanket federal preemption would discourage innovation rather than foster it. By removing the ability for regulatory experimentation across different states, it would stifle “laboratories of democracy” where local governments can test tailored, context‑specific AI policies. According to the author, that diversity of regulatory approaches helps surface what works — and what doesn’t — before imposing a one‑size‑fits‑all rulebook nationwide.
Finally, Barron’s contends that a better approach would be for federal and state governments to coordinate — not collide — on AI governance. Rather than freezing state laws, the piece calls for a balanced framework that allows states to protect citizens while still giving businesses regulatory clarity, thus preserving both innovation and public interest.
