Adam Thierer's Testimony on Federal Preemption in AI Regulation

Published Date : 26/09/2025 

Adam Thierer, a Senior Fellow at the R Street Institute, testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the need for federal preemption to streamline the patchwork of state-level AI regulations, ensuring a clear and pro-innovation national framework. 

On September 18, 2025, Adam Thierer, a Senior Fellow at the R Street Institute, testified before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet. The hearing, titled “AI at a Crossroads: A Nationwide Strategy or Californication?,” focused on the necessity of federal preemption to address the evolving state-level artificial intelligence (AI) regulatory landscape.

Thierer emphasized the urgent need for Congress to establish a clear national policy framework for AI to ensure the United States remains a global leader in technological innovation. He highlighted the issues posed by state governments imposing proscriptive, European-style regulations on AI, which can lead to a patchwork of disparate, duplicative, and contradictory regulatory frameworks. These regulations increase compliance costs and stifle innovation, particularly for smaller tech firms.

To prevent this regulatory patchwork from hindering the development of AI systems, Thierer argued that Congress must assert its authority in matters of interstate commerce. He noted that federal preemption is not without precedent and pointed to previous instances where Congress played an active role in formulating policy for emerging technologies, such as the Copyright Act of 1976, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998. These bipartisan efforts laid the groundwork for the United States to become a global leader in digital technology in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Thierer provided several recommendations for constructing a national framework for AI:

1. Expressly preempt state regulations related to frontier AI labs and models.

2. Preempt state-led initiatives to address “algorithmic bias” through the regulation of AI development and applications via AI audits or algorithmic impact assessments.

3. Establish a standing working group, headed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI), to resolve other issues that may arise between federal and state AI policy.

Thierer also highlighted the continued role of states under a national framework. He noted that states already possess a diverse policy toolkit of generally applicable laws to address real-world harms from AI applications. States can continue to focus on areas of clear parochial concern, such as the use of AI in law enforcement, educational systems, and election processes. Additionally, states can use experimental “sandboxes” and “learning labs” to encourage creative governance approaches in regulated sectors and consider “right to compute” legislation to protect public access to computational resources.

Throughout his testimony, Thierer engaged in several exchanges with members of Congress. Rep. Laurel Lee (R-Fla.) asked about his recommendation that NIST and CAISI be given more authority to develop standards for AI frontier models. Thierer explained that such a move is necessary because many states lack the capacity and information to impose highly technical rules and regulations effectively. NIST’s involvement ensures that responsibility and expertise are aligned, leading to the development of good standards.

Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Wis.) inquired about the impact of embracing European-style regulations on the U.S. AI ecosystem. Thierer pointed out that Europe’s regulatory approach has stifled AI innovation, with only two of the 25 largest AI companies headquartered there, compared to 18 in the United States. Europe’s “guilty until proven innocent” model has decimated their technological economy, while America’s “light-touch” approach has generated numerous benefits.

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) asked for Thierer’s thoughts on actions Congress could take to preempt state AI regulation. Thierer suggested both broad and tailored approaches, citing the “TAKE IT DOWN Act” (S. 146) as an example of targeted legislation. He emphasized the need to avoid a regulatory patchwork through the creation of a federal framework.

Finally, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) asked about the regulation of AI inputs versus outputs. Thierer noted that regulating AI inputs on a state-by-state basis would create a regulatory morass. Instead, a focus on the uses of AI would be best, with civil rights and consumer protection laws exempt from federal preemption. A moratorium or federal preemption would balance innovation with consumer protection.

In conclusion, Thierer’s testimony underscored the importance of a federal framework that supports a vibrant, national market for AI by creating rules that enable innovation rather than stifle it. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS): 

Q: What is the main issue with state-level AI regulations?

A: State-level AI regulations often result in a patchwork of disparate, duplicative, and contradictory frameworks, increasing compliance costs and stifling innovation, especially for smaller tech firms.

Q: What are the key recommendations for a national AI framework?

A: The key recommendations include expressly preempting state regulations related to frontier AI labs and models, preempting state-led initiatives to address algorithmic bias, and establishing a standing working group headed by NIST and CAISI.

Q: Why is federal preemption important for AI innovation?

A: Federal preemption is important because it provides a clear and consistent regulatory environment, reducing compliance costs and fostering innovation by avoiding a patchwork of state regulations.

Q: What is the role of states under a national AI framework?

A: States can continue to use their existing policy toolkits to address real-world harms from AI applications and focus on areas of clear parochial concern, such as law enforcement and educational systems.

Q: How does Europe’s regulatory approach compare to the U.S. approach in AI innovation?

A: Europe’s regulatory approach, which assumes that innovators are ‘guilty until proven innocent,’ has stifled AI innovation, with only two of the 25 largest AI companies headquartered there. In contrast, the U.S. ‘light-touch’ approach has generated numerous benefits and maintained a lead in technological development. 

More Related Topics :