A key U.S. lawmaker on artificial intelligence policy has pushed back on the idea that a federal moratorium on AI regulation was ever meant to be a lasting fix, arguing instead that it was a temporary messaging tool to spark broader legislative action. Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) explained that the 2025 AI moratorium provision, which sought to pause state-level AI regulation, was never expected to survive the legislative process and was misunderstood by many observers. He stated the real goal was to highlight the need for a coherent national AI regulatory framework rather than “hold AI in place indefinitely.”
Obernolte noted that the moratorium language was initially introduced as a conversation starter about where federal and state authorities should have regulatory roles, not as a permanent freeze on state action. While the measure advanced further than anticipated — clearing committee and briefly moving through the House — it was ultimately stripped out of the budget reconciliation bill by the Senate, reflecting its contentious nature and lack of long-term legislative support.
Instead of relying on a moratorium, Obernolte advocates for a balanced, sector-specific federal AI regulatory framework that would establish uniform guardrails and define clear boundaries for state regulations in areas that intersect with interstate commerce. He emphasized that preemptive federal guidelines should be developed in tandem with state innovation, ensuring that local laws addressing issues like child safety or procurement don’t conflict with national standards.
The moratorium debate has drawn diverse reactions across the political spectrum, with some lawmakers previously voicing concern that a lengthy federal pause could undermine emerging state protections or hinder timely regulatory responses. Obernolte’s remarks signal a shift away from moratorium-based approaches toward efforts to craft lasting, practical AI governance structures that integrate federal leadership with appropriate state roles.
