Regulation of AI in the United States

Discussions on regulation of artificial intelligence in the United States have included topics such as the timeliness of regulating AI, the nature of the federal regulatory framework to govern and promote AI, including what agency should lead, the regulatory and governing powers of that agency, and how to update regulations in the face of rapidly changing technology, as well as the roles of state governments and courts.[1]

## Federal government regulatory measures

[edit]

### 2016-2017

[edit]

As early as 2016, the Obama administration had begun to focus on the risks and regulations for artificial intelligence. In a report titled Preparing For the Future of Artificial Intelligence,[2] the National Science and Technology Council set a precedent to allow researchers to continue to develop new AI technologies with few restrictions. It is stated within the report that "the approach to regulation of AI-enabled products to protect public safety should be informed by assessment of the aspects of risk....".[3] These risks would be the principal reason to create any form of regulation, granted that any existing regulation would not apply to AI technology.

### 2018-2020

[edit]

The first main report was the National Strategic Research and Development Plan for Artificial Intelligence.[4] On August 13, 2018, Section 1051 of the Fiscal Year 2019 John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 115-232) established the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence "to consider the methods and means necessary to advance the development of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and associated technologies to comprehensively address the national security and defense needs of the United States."[5] Steering on regulating security-related AI is provided by the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence.[6] The Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act (S.1558) is a proposed bill that would establish a federal initiative designed to accelerate research and development on AI for, inter alia, the economic and national security of the United States.[7][8]

On January 7, 2019, following an Executive Order on Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence,[9] the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy released a draft Guidance for Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Applications,[10] which includes ten principles for United States agencies when deciding whether and how to regulate AI.[11] In response, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has released a position paper,[12] and the Defense Innovation Board has issued recommendations on the ethical use of AI.[13] A year later, the administration called for comments on regulation in another draft of its Guidance for Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Applications.[14]

Other specific agencies working on the regulation of AI include the Food and Drug Administration,[15] which has created pathways to regulate the incorporation of AI in medical imaging.[16] National Science and Technology Council also published the National Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Strategic Plan,[17] which received public scrutiny and recommendations to further improve it towards enabling Trustworthy AI.[18]

### 2020-2021

[edit]

In March 2021, the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence released their final report.[19] In the report, they stated that "Advances in AI, including the mastery of more general AI capabilities along one or more dimensions, will likely provide new capabilities and applications. Some of these advances could lead to inflection points or leaps in capabilities. Such advances may also introduce new concerns and risks and the need for new policies, recommendations, and technical advances to assure that systems are aligned with goals and values, including safety, robustness and trustworthiness. The US should monitor advances in AI and make necessary investments in technology and give attention to policy so as to ensure that AI systems and their uses align with our goals and values."

In June 2022, Senators Rob Portman and Gary Peters introduced the Global Catastrophic Risk Mitigation Act. The bipartisan bill "would also help counter the risk of artificial intelligence... from being abused in ways that may pose a catastrophic risk".[20][21] On October 4, 2022, President Joe Biden unveiled a new AI Bill of Rights,[22] which outlines five protections Americans should have in the AI age: 1. Safe and Effective Systems, 2. Algorithmic Discrimination Protection, 3.Data Privacy, 4. Notice and Explanation, and 5. Human Alternatives, Consideration, and Fallback. The Bill was introduced in October 2021 by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), a US government department that advises the president on science and technology.[23]

### 2023-2024

[edit]

In July 2023, the Biden–Harris Administration secured voluntary commitments from seven companies – Amazon, Anthropic, Google, Inflection, Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI – to manage the risks associated with AI. The companies committed to ensure AI products undergo both internal and external security testing before public release; to share information on the management of AI risks with the industry, governments, civil society, and academia; to prioritize cybersecurity and protect proprietary AI system components; to develop mechanisms to inform users when content is AI-generated, such as watermarking; to publicly report on their AI systems' capabilities, limitations, and areas of use; to prioritize research on societal risks posed by AI, including bias, discrimination, and privacy concerns; and to develop AI systems to address societal challenges, ranging from cancer prevention to climate change mitigation. In September 2023, eight additional companies – Adobe, Cohere, IBM, Nvidia, Palantir, Salesforce, Scale AI, and Stability AI – subscribed to these voluntary commitments.[24][25]

The Biden administration, in October 2023 signaled that they would release an executive order leveraging the federal government's purchasing power to shape AI regulations, hinting at a proactive governmental stance in regulating AI technologies.[26] On October 30, 2023, President Biden released this Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence. The Executive Order addresses a variety of issues, such as focusing on standards for critical infrastructure, AI-enhanced cybersecurity, and federally funded biological synthesis projects.[27]

The Executive Order provides the authority to various agencies and departments of the US government, including the Energy and Defense departments, to apply existing consumer protection laws to AI development.[28]

The Executive Order builds on the Administration’s earlier agreements with AI companies to instate new initiatives to "red-team" or stress-test AI dual-use foundation models, especially those that have the potential to pose security risks, with data and results shared with the federal government.

The Executive Order also recognizes AI's social challenges, and calls for companies building AI dual-use foundation models to be wary of these societal problems. For example, the Executive Order states that AI should not “worsen job quality”, and should not “cause labor-force disruptions”. Additionally, Biden’s Executive Order mandates that AI must “advance equity and civil rights”, and cannot disadvantage marginalized groups.[29] It also called for foundation models to include "watermarks" to help the public discern between human and AI-generated content, which has raised controversy and criticism from deepfake detection researchers.[30]

### 2025

[edit]

In January 2025, President Trump repealed the Biden executive order. This action reflects President Trump's preference for deregulating AI in support of innovation over safeguarding risks.[31]

In early 2025, Congress began advanced bipartisan legislation targeting AI-generated deepfakes, including the "TAKE IT DOWN Act," which would prohibit nonconsensual disclosure of AI-generated "intimate imagery", requiring all platforms to remove such content. Additionally, lawmakers also reintroduced the CREATE AI Act to codify the National AI Research Resource (NAIRR), which aimed to expand public access to computing resources, datasets, and AI testing environments. Additionally, the Trump administration also signed Executive Order #14179 to initiate a national “AI Action Plan”, focusing on securing U.S. global AI dominance in a way in which the White House can seek public input on AI safety and standards. At the state level, new laws have also been passed or proposed to regulate AI-generated impersonations, chatbot disclosures, and even synthetic political content. Meanwhile, the Department of Commerce also expanded export controls on AI technology, and NIST published an updated set of guidances on AI cybersecurity risks.[32]

In March 2025, OpenAI made a policy proposal for the Trump administration to preempt pending AI-related state laws with federal laws.[33] Meta, Google, IBM and Andreessen Horowitz have also pressured the government to adopt national rules that would rein in state laws.[34] In May 2025, House Republicans inserted into a tax and spending bill a clause banning state AI laws for 10 years,[35] which was met with opposition from more than 100 organizations.[36] The Senate voted 99-1 to defeat the ban.[37]

## State and local government interventions

[edit]

In January 2023, the New York City Bias Audit Law (Local Law 144[38]) was enacted by the NYC Council in November 2021. Originally due to come into effect on 1 January 2023, the enforcement date for Local Law 144 has been pushed back due to the high volume of comments received during the public hearing on the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection's (DCWP) proposed rules to clarify the requirements of the legislation. It eventually became effective on July 5, 2023.[39] From this date, the companies that are operating and hiring in New York City are prohibited from using automated tools to hire candidates or promote employees, unless the tools have been independently audited for bias.

In February 2024, Senator Scott Wiener introduced the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act to the California legislature. The bill drew heavily on the Biden executive order [40] and had the goal of reducing catastrophic risks by mandating safety tests for the most powerful AI models. If passed, the bill would have established a publicly-funded cloud computing cluster in California.[41] On September 29, 2024. Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the bill. It is considered unlikely that the legislature will override the governor's veto with a two-thirds vote from both houses.[42]

On March 13, 2024, Utah Governor Spencer Cox signed the S.B 149 "Artificial Intelligence Policy Act". This legislation went into effect on May 1, 2024.[43] It established liability, notably for companies that do not disclose their use of generative AI when required by state consumer protection laws, or when users commit criminal offense using generative AI. It also created the Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy and the Artificial Intelligence Learning Laboratory Program.[44]

On March 21, 2024, the State of Tennessee enacted legislation called the ELVIS Act, aimed specifically at audio deepfakes, and voice cloning.[45] This legislation was the first enacted legislation in the nation aimed at regulating AI simulation of image, voice and likeness.[46] The bill passed unanimously in the Tennessee House of Representatives and Senate.[47] This legislation's success was hoped by its supporters to inspire similar actions in other states, contributing to a unified approach to copyright and privacy in the digital age, and to reinforce the importance of safeguarding artists' rights against unauthorized use of their voices and likenesses.[48][49]

## Grassroots perspectives

[edit]

In 2016, Joy Buolamwini, AI researcher at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, shared her personal experiences with discrimination in facial recognition software at a TED Talk conference.[50] Facial recognition software is widely understood to be inaccurate in its identification of darker-skinned peoples, which matters especially in the context of policing, the criminal justice system, healthcare system, and employment sectors. [51]

In 2022, the PEW Research Center's study of Americans revealed that only 18% of respondents are more excited than they are concerned about AI.[52] Biases in AI algorithms and methods that lead to discrimination are causes for concern among many activist organizations and academic institutions. Recommendations include increasing diversity among creators of AI algorithms and addressing existing systemic bias in current legislation and AI development practices.[51][53]

## References

[edit]

1. ^ Weaver, John Frank (2018-12-28). "Regulation of artificial intelligence in the United States". Research Handbook on the Law of Artificial Intelligence: 155–212\. doi:10.4337/9781786439055.00018. ISBN 9781786439055.
2. ^ "The Administration's Report on the Future of Artificial Intelligence". White House. 2016-10-12. Retrieved 2023-11-01.
3. ^ National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology (October 2016). "Preparing for the Future of Artificial Intelligence". whitehouse.gov – via National Archives.
4. ^ "National Strategic Research and Development Plan for Artificial Intelligence" (PDF). National Science and Technology Council. October 2016.
5. ^ "About". National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved 2020-06-29.
6. ^ Stefanik, Elise M. (2018-05-22). "H.R.5356 – 115th Congress (2017–2018): National Security Commission Artificial Intelligence Act of 2018". www.congress.gov. Retrieved 2020-03-13.
7. ^ Heinrich, Martin (2019-05-21). "Text - S.1558 - 116th Congress (2019–2020): Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act". www.congress.gov. Retrieved 2020-03-29.
8. ^ Scherer, Matthew U. (2015). "Regulating Artificial Intelligence Systems: Risks, Challenges, Competencies, and Strategies". SSRN Working Paper Series. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2609777. ISSN 1556-5068.
9. ^ "Executive Order on Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence – The White House". trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov. Retrieved 2023-11-01.
10. ^ Vought, Russell T. "MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES - Guidance for Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Applications" (PDF). The White House.
11. ^ "AI Update: White House Issues 10 Principles for Artificial Intelligence Regulation". Inside Tech Media. 2020-01-14. Retrieved 2020-03-25.
12. ^ U.S. Leadership in AI: A Plan for Federal Engagement in Developing Technical Standards and Related Tools (PDF). National Institute of Science and Technology. 2019.
13. ^ AI principles: Recommendations on the ethical use of artificial intelligence by the Department of Defense (PDF). Washington, DC: United States Defense Innovation Board. 2019. OCLC 1126650738. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 4, 2019.
14. ^ "Request for Comments on a Draft Memorandum to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, "Guidance for Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Applications"". Federal Register. 2020-01-13. Retrieved 2020-11-28.
15. ^ Hwang, Thomas J.; Kesselheim, Aaron S.; Vokinger, Kerstin N. (2019-12-17). "Lifecycle Regulation of Artificial Intelligence– and Machine Learning–Based Software Devices in Medicine". JAMA. 322 (23): 2285–2286\. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.16842. ISSN 0098-7484. PMID 31755907. S2CID 208230202.
16. ^ Kohli, Ajay; Mahajan, Vidur; Seals, Kevin; Kohli, Ajit; Jha, Saurabh (2019). "Concepts in U.S. Food and Drug Administration Regulation of Artificial Intelligence for Medical Imaging". American Journal of Roentgenology. 213 (4): 886–888\. doi:10.2214/ajr.18.20410. ISSN 0361-803X. PMID 31166758. S2CID 174813195.
17. ^ National Science Technology Council (June 21, 2019). "The National Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Strategic Plan: 2019 Update" (PDF).
18. ^ Gursoy, Furkan; Kakadiaris, Ioannis A. (2023). "Artificial intelligence research strategy of the United States: critical assessment and policy recommendations". Frontiers in Big Data. 6. doi:10.3389/fdata.2023.1206139. ISSN 2624-909X. PMC 10440374. PMID 37609602.
19. ^ NSCAI Final Report (PDF). Washington, DC: The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. 2021.
20. ^ Homeland Newswire (2022-06-25). "Portman, Peters Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Ensure Federal Government is Prepared for Catastrophic Risks to National Security". HomelandNewswire. Archived from the original on June 25, 2022. Retrieved 2022-07-04.
21. ^ "Text - S.4488 - 117th Congress (2021–2022): A bill to establish an interagency committee on global catastrophic risk, and for other purposes. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress". Congress.gov. 2022-06-23. Retrieved 2022-07-04.
22. ^ "Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights | OSTP". The White House. Retrieved 2023-11-01.
23. ^ "The White House just unveiled a new AI Bill of Rights". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 2023-10-24.
24. ^ House, The White (2023-07-21). "FACT SHEET: Biden–Harris Administration Secures Voluntary Commitments from Leading Artificial Intelligence Companies to Manage the Risks Posed by AI". The White House. Retrieved 2023-09-25.
25. ^ House, The White (2023-09-12). "FACT SHEET: Biden–Harris Administration Secures Voluntary Commitments from Eight Additional Artificial Intelligence Companies to Manage the Risks Posed by AI". The White House. Retrieved 2023-09-25.
26. ^ Chatterjee, Mohar (2023-10-12). "White House AI order to flex federal buying power". POLITICO. Retrieved 2023-10-27.
27. ^ House, The White (2023-10-30). "FACT SHEET: President Biden Issues Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence". The White House. Retrieved 2023-12-05.
28. ^ Lewis, James Andrew; Benson, Emily; Frank, Michael (2023-10-31). "The Biden Administration's Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence".
29. ^ House, The White (2023-10-30). "Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence". The White House. Retrieved 2023-12-05.
30. ^ Lanum, Nikolas (2023-11-07). "President Biden's AI executive order has 'dangerous limitations,' says deepfake detection company CEO". FOXBusiness. Retrieved 2023-12-05.
31. ^ "Trump repeals Biden's AI oversight order, shifts focus to innovation-driven policies". CIO. Retrieved 2025-06-16.
32. ^ Wells, Jennifer Johnson, Nicholas Xenakis, Mike Nonaka, Jayne Ponder, John Mizerak, August Gweon, Jess Gonzalez Valenzuela, Conor Kane, Max Larson, McCall (2025-04-23). "U.S. Tech Legislative & Regulatory Update – First Quarter 2025". Inside Global Tech. Retrieved 2025-06-16.`{{cite web}}`: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
33. ^ "OpenAI's Preemption Request Highlights State Laws' Downsides". 2025-03-31. Archived from the original on 2025-05-21. Retrieved 2025-06-16.
34. ^ "How Big Tech is trying to shut down California's AI rules". POLITICO. 2025-05-12. Retrieved 2025-06-16.
35. ^ "House Republicans include a 10-year ban on US states regulating AI in 'big, beautiful' bill". AP News. 2025-05-16. Retrieved 2025-06-16.
36. ^ Duffy, Clare (2025-05-19). "House Republicans want to stop states from regulating AI. More than 100 organizations are pushing back | CNN Business". CNN. Retrieved 2025-06-16.
37. ^ Brown, Matt (2025-07-02). "Senate strikes AI regulatory ban from GOP bill after uproar from the states". AP. Retrieved 2025-07-25.
38. ^ "A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to automated employment decision tools". The New York City Council. Retrieved 2023-11-01.
39. ^ Kestenbaum, Jonathan (July 5, 2023). "NYC's New AI Bias Law Broadly Impacts Hiring and Requires Audits". Bloomberg Law. Retrieved 2023-10-24.
40. ^ Myrow, Rachael (2024-02-16). "California Lawmakers Take On AI Regulation With a Host of Bills | KQED". www.kqed.org. Retrieved 2025-06-16.
41. ^ De Vynck, Gerrit (2024-02-08). "In Big Tech's backyard, California lawmaker unveils landmark AI bill". The Washington Post.
42. ^ Lee, Wendy (2024-09-29). "Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoes AI safety bill opposed by Silicon Valley". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2025-06-16.
43. ^ "SB0149". le.utah.gov. Retrieved 2025-06-16.
44. ^ "Utah Passes Legislation Regulating Use of Artificial Intelligence". aibusiness.com. Retrieved 2025-06-16.
45. ^ Kristin Robinson (2024). "Tennessee Adopts ELVIS Act, Protecting Artists' Voices From AI Impersonation". The New York Times. Retrieved March 26, 2024.
46. ^ Ashley King (2024). "The ELVIS Act Has Officially Been Signed Into Law — First State-Level AI Legislation In the US". Digital Music News. Retrieved March 26, 2024.
47. ^ Tennessee House (2024). "House Floor Session - 44th Legislative Day" (video). Tennessee House. Retrieved March 26, 2024.
48. ^ Audrey Gibbs (2024). "TN Gov. Lee signs ELVIS Act into law in honky-tonk, protects musicians from AI abuses". The Tennessean. Retrieved March 26, 2024.
49. ^ Alex Greene (2024). "The ELVIS Act". Memphis Flyer. Retrieved March 26, 2024.
50. ^ Buolamwini, Joy (November 2016). "How I'm fighting bias in algorithms". Retrieved February 1, 2024.
51. ^ a b "How Artificial Intelligence Bias Affects Women and People of Color". Berkeley School of Information. December 8, 2021. Retrieved February 1, 2024.
52. ^ Raine, Lee (March 17, 2022). "1. How Americans think about artificial intelligence". Pew Research Center. Retrieved May 11, 2024.
53. ^ Akselrod, Olga (July 13, 2021). "How Artificial Intelligence Can Deepen Racial and Economic Inequities". ACLU. Retrieved February 1, 2024.