American Artificial Intelligence Leadership and Uniformity Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Baumgartner, Michael [R-WA-5]
- Committees
- Veterans' Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 19, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to centralize AI governance at the federal level and foster innovation by preventing a fragmented regulatory landscape at the state level for a temporary period.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a national policy for American leadership in artificial intelligence (AI), mandates the development of a comprehensive Federal Action Plan for AI, and imposes a temporary 5-year moratorium on state and local laws that regulate AI models and systems engaged in interstate commerce, with specific exceptions.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is crucial for maintaining American global leadership in AI by creating a uniform, innovation-friendly regulatory environment. They believe a federal approach prevents a 'patchwork' of state laws that could stifle development, especially for small businesses, and ensures national security and economic competitiveness.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that a broad federal preemption could strip states of their ability to protect citizens from potential harms of AI, especially given the rapid evolution of the technology. They may also contend that a 5-year moratorium is too long or too short, depending on their perspective, and that it could create regulatory gaps in consumer protection and civil liberties.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate its core provisions.
Section 1
Short Title: American Artificial Intelligence Leadership and Uniformity Act
This section establishes the official short title of the bill, making it easier to reference and identify in legislative discourse and public discussion. The chosen title reflects the bill's dual goals of promoting American leadership in AI and establishing regulatory uniformity.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a clear and concise short title helps communicate the bill's intent and facilitates public understanding and legislative process.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the short title of a bill, as it is primarily for identification.
Tradeoffs
None significant for a short title.
Section 2
Definitions of Artificial Intelligence, Models, Systems, and Automated Decision Systems
This section defines key terms such as 'artificial intelligence,' 'artificial intelligence model,' 'artificial intelligence system,' and 'automated decision system.' These definitions are critical for establishing the precise scope of the bill's federal policy and the subsequent state law preemption, determining which technologies and applications are covered.
Section 4
National Policy for American AI Leadership and Governance
This section outlines the core policy objectives of the United States regarding AI. It emphasizes sustaining global AI dominance, national security, a sectoral and technology-neutral federal governance approach, a permissive national framework for AI development, and anchoring risk management in national standards. It also stresses minimizing burdens on small businesses and clear, time-limited federal preemption.
Section 5
National Artificial Intelligence Action Plan and Annual Updates
This section mandates the President to develop and submit a National Artificial Intelligence Action Plan to Congress within 30 days of enactment, with annual updates. The plan must identify barriers to innovation, set measurable goals for R&D, align federal risk management with national standards (like NIST's AI RMF), strengthen critical infrastructure security, reduce burdens on small businesses, and set metrics for progress. It also requires a review of existing executive orders on AI for consistency with the new policy.
Section 6(a)
5-Year Federal Preemption of State and Local AI Regulations
This is a central provision, establishing a 5-year moratorium on state and local laws or regulations that limit, restrict, or otherwise regulate AI models, systems, or automated decision systems engaged in interstate commerce. The goal is to prevent a fragmented regulatory environment across states while a national framework is developed.
Section 6(a)(2)
Exemptions from the State Law Preemption
This subsection carves out specific exceptions to the 5-year moratorium. States can still enforce laws that primarily facilitate AI deployment, streamline licensing, or do not impose substantive requirements unless those requirements are federally mandated or apply equally to non-AI systems providing comparable functions. It also allows for reasonable, cost-based fees and bonds, and explicitly permits enforcement of generally applicable criminal laws.
Requires designated officials to review all policies, directives, regulations, orders, and guidance issued under Executive Order 14110 (Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence) and Executive Order 14179 (Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence). It mandates identifying actions inconsistent with the new policy in Section 4 and, where appropriate, suspending, revising, or rescinding such actions.
Section 5(d)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure coherence between new statutory policy and existing executive actions. It's not necessarily evasive but requires careful reading to grasp its full implications for current federal AI efforts.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures that the federal government's AI strategy is unified and consistent, preventing conflicting directives from different branches of government and aligning all efforts with the new national policy established by the bill.
Case against: Critics might argue that this provision could be used to weaken or dismantle existing AI safeguards or ethical guidelines established under previous executive orders, potentially rolling back progress on responsible AI development in favor of unchecked innovation.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, as it could lead to the modification or repeal of current federal AI policies and guidelines, affecting how agencies develop, procure, and deploy AI systems.
Clarifies that the state law preemption does not prevent state or local governments from setting performance, security, or other requirements for their *own* procurement or use of AI systems, provided these requirements do not act as de facto regulations on private parties beyond the government's role as a market participant.
Section 6(c)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative technique to address specific edge cases and clarify the limits of a broad provision. It ensures that the primary intent of the preemption (preventing state-level *regulation* of private AI in interstate commerce) is maintained without unduly restricting government's role as a consumer.
Case for: Supporters would argue this provision is essential to preserve the ability of state and local governments to ensure the AI systems they purchase meet their specific operational, security, and ethical standards, without being constrained by the federal preemption.
Case against: Opponents might argue that the distinction between a 'procurement requirement' and a 'de facto regulation' is inherently ambiguous and could lead to legal challenges, potentially undermining the clarity sought by the federal preemption and creating new avenues for litigation.
Estimated impact: Moderate, as it preserves a degree of autonomy for state and local governments in their own operations, potentially influencing the market for government AI contracts and the standards adopted by vendors for public sector use.