Republicans Must Say No to the AI Regulation Moratorium
In the earliest days of Donald Trump's second term, there were exciting signs that the administration was going to chart what we might call a "human-first" course on technology. Voters who were angry over how smartphones, social media, app stores, and EdTech had metastasized into something resembling a conspiracy against children, and who were anxious that automation might take their jobs, helped the president retake the White House.
But hopes for a human-first tech policy are already dimming. In its all-consuming efforts to beat China in the A.I. race, the Republican Party has fallen into its old libertarian habits of deferring to Big Tech's interests, failing to protect children and families from predatory uses of emerging technology, and deregulating the industry so that it can operate without any concern for consumer welfare.
It's not too late, though. In the administration's earliest days, the president sided with longshoremen against efforts to make union members redundant via automation. Also, in his January 25, 2025 executive order, the president committed to A.I. policy that pursues "human flourishing." Vice President JD Vance declared at February's A.I. Action Summit in Paris that the administration would "fight for policies that ensure that AI" will lead to "higher wages, better benefits, and safer and more prosperous communities." This is the road that most Americans want the administration to take.
But since then, the Republican Party has taken one huge step backward. Last month the House of Representatives approved an amendment to the "Big Beautiful Bill" that, if ratified by the Senate, would shield A.I. companies from state regulation and liability for ten whole years.
Such a move shows astounding disregard for how ungoverned technologies can undermine human flourishing—and it would unbridle Big Tech's power. The moratorium would void a law in Utah, for instance, that prohibits mental health chatbots from targeting users with advertising, a policy that removes companies' incentives to exploit a suffering audience. It would also block a proposed law in Texas that would require a "human operator," i.e., a human driver, to accompany an autonomous long-haul truck as it transports its freight. And it would block several laws that have been introduced around the country, including in blue states like California and New York, that would require so-called "A.I. companions"—an Orwellian bit of Big Tech branding—to clarify that they are not human beings.
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA - JUNE 02: Open AI CEO Sam Altman speaks during Snowflake Summit 2025 at Moscone Center on June 02, 2025 in San Francisco, California.
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA - JUNE 02: Open AI CEO Sam Altman speaks during Snowflake Summit 2025 at Moscone Center on June 02, 2025 in San Francisco, California.Republicans must learn from Congress' past mistakes, such as when, in 1996, it passed the ignominious Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 was touted as necessary to guard the innovative potential of the nascent online service industry from death by regulation. But, by granting sweeping immunity for any content posted by third parties, platforms were disincentivized from making good-faith efforts to protect kids. Section 230 dug a legal moat around Big Tech from behind which the industry waged war on America's children.
The ten-year moratorium on A.I. regulation portends a similar legacy. It indicates that Congress, especially Republican leadership, has failed to reckon with how immunizing technological power from liability threatens human flourishing.
To its credit, by including human flourishing in its A.I. policy framework, the administration recognizes the possibility of promoting A.I. innovation without sacrificing other human goods. Human flourishing as an explicit policy objective underscores that "acceleration," as the techno-libertarian Right calls it, is an over-simplified paradigm, and that tech policy needs to pursue a broader suite of values, especially the good of the human person and the family.
As we have argued elsewhere, the achievement of human flourishing in the age of A.I. (as in every age) depends on deliberate policy choices. Technological innovation, no matter how beneficial to economic prosperity or national security, should never come at the expense of the family or the human person. And there are ways to balance these interests. We have called upon the Trump administration, for instance, to establish a Working Group on Technology and the Family, that would directly assist in the formation of policy to guide technology toward family empowerment, and away from legislation—like the moratorium—that would put families in the crosshairs.
In February 2019, the first Trump administration released an executive order that committed the federal government to securing "public trust" and "public confidence" in its A.I. policy. It acknowledged that protecting "American values" was a critical objective, even as it worked to advance "American leadership in AI." That is what an administration committed to human flourishing sounds like; and it is what the second Trump administration sounded like at its start. A ten-year moratorium on state regulation, by contrast, is just a retread of the tired libertarian playbook that trades American values and public trust for technological power and financial gain.
Fortunately, a groundswell of opposition among Republicans senators has emerged, such as Josh Hawley (Mo.), Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), Ron Johnson (Wisc.), and Rick Scott (Fla.), who publicly oppose the moratorium. Representative Marjorie Taylor Green (R-Ga.) has done likewise, and more may join them.
So, the die is not yet cast. The word is not yet final. The future is still ahead. The Trump administration can still make a human-first A.I. policy. But the time for choosing is now.
Michael Toscano is director of the Family First Technology Initiative at the Institute for Family Studies. Jared Hayden is a policy analyst for the Family First Tech Initiative at the Institute for Family Studies.
The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
7 minutes ago
- Forbes
Trump Criticizes Windmills In Latest Attack Against Wind Energy
President Donald Trump blasted green tax breaks and windmills in a rant about his signature budget package moving through Congress, tacking onto his longstanding criticism of the turbines even as they have become an increasingly cost-effective form of energy. US President Donald Trump waves as he boards Air Force One at Morristown Municipal Airport in ... More Morristown, New Jersey, on June 21, 2025 as he returns to the White House from his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey. Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images Trump said in a Truth Social post he 'HATED' green tax credits in the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' saying the cuts are largely a 'giant SCAM.' The bill, a massive measure currently in the Senate that will extend tax cuts passed by Trump during his first term, will remove or limit tax credits for electric vehicles and home energy efficiency if passed, as well as create gradual, year-by-year cuts to wind and solar farm tax credits. Trump said windmills 'are the most expensive and inefficient energy in the world' and are 'destroying the beauty of the environment.' The president also claimed, without evidence, windmills are '10 times more costly than any other energy,' taking issue with government subsidies linked to turbines. Get Forbes Breaking News Text Alerts : We're launching text message alerts so you'll always know the biggest stories shaping the day's headlines. Text 'Alerts' to (201) 335-0739 or sign up here . What Has Trump Said About Windmills ? Shortly after taking office, the president said the government would not subsidize new windmill farms and added he doesn't 'want even one built' during his second term. Trump called wind turbines the 'most expensive energy' that only works 'with massive government subsidies, which we will no longer pay.' Trump could potentially impact windmill production on federal lands, but not on privately owned plots. Trump has also falsely claimed windmills kill whales, though there is no evidence supporting the claim about the mammals and offshore turbines. Not likely. The Department of Energy has said 'wind and solar projects are now more economically competitive than gas, geothermal, coal, or nuclear facilities,' though windmills in locations lacking wind could be an exception. Onshore wind turbines saw global costs of energy production fall by 68% in 2021, according to a report from the International Renewable Energy Agency, which noted onshore capacity increased four-fold from 2010 to 2021. The agency also reported onshore wind project costs fell by 13% while offshore wind projects fell by 9% in 2020. Key Background Trump once lost a legal battle in which he sought to block the construction of an offshore wind farm in view of a golf course project of his in Scotland. The president lost in court and was required to pay over $290,000 in legal fees to the Scottish government. His scrutiny of windmills is a change from his first term, when former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said he was 'very bullish on offshore wind,' adding the harnessing of the energy source was 'a big part of the Trump Administration's made in America energy strategy.' Trump's Tax Cuts Would Raise Deficit By $2.8 Trillion, New Estimate Suggests (Forbes) Trump Calls Windmills 'An Economic And Environmental Disaster' In Latest Rant Against Turbines (Forbes)
Washington Post
22 minutes ago
- Washington Post
B-2 bombers fly across Pacific as Trump contemplates Iran strike
Multiple B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, deployed from an Air Force base in Missouri, flew west over the Pacific Ocean on Saturday, according to a U.S. official, in a likely show of force to Iran as President Donald Trump contemplates using military force to attack a key nuclear facility there. The aircraft's likely destination is either Andersen Air Force Base in Guam or a military installation on the island of Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean, the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity. Both bases have hosted strategic bombers, including the B-2 and B-52, in recent months.
Forbes
28 minutes ago
- Forbes
Elon Musk's DOGE Wouldn't Have Worked Even If It Had Worked
WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 13: Elon Musk listens as U.S. President-elect Donald Trump addresses a ... More House Republicans Conference meeting at the Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill on November 13, 2024 in Washington, DC. As is tradition with incoming presidents, Trump is traveling to Washington, DC to meet with U.S. President Joe Biden at the White House as well as meet with Republican congressmen on Capitol Hill. (Photo by) It's easy to forget that individual saving in no way shrinks consumption. Short of placing money saved into a coffee can, to save is to shift consumptive ability to someone else. What's true about individual saving is true about government savings. No act of parsimony shrinks the size of government either. That's why Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) wouldn't have worked even if it had worked. Short of the savings being placed in a much bigger coffee can, government spending cuts born of efficiency, headcount reduction, mandate reduction, or all three would have just freed up money for Congress to spend in new ways. In government as with individual, what's not spent is shifted to other existing priorities, or much worse, all new ones. It's the new spending initiatives that are the most perilous. Most start out small, and this includes Medicare. It's so easy to forget that it began as a $3 billion program in the 1960s, but is expected to pass $1 trillion in the coming years. Which speaks to the danger of spending cuts. Talk about "regime uncertainty." Unfortunate and economy-sapping as much government spending is today, the good news is that it's a known. In other words, the myriad ways that Congress politicizes the allocation of precious resources is already priced or factored into our day-to-day existence. That's not so with new initiatives. Who knows what Congress will dream up, and who knows how what Congress will dream up will end up? To see the peril of this, ask yourself if Congress would have had the votes to pass Medicare if it was known that sixty years later it would yet again be a nearly $1 trillion annual program today. That's why without excusing most federal outlays for even a second, when it comes to government the devil you know is better than the unknown. Which is why it's better to let Congress fight over what's known and priced, as opposed to freeing it to design all new programs and initiatives from the proverbial studs. They could end up much bigger than they presently are. Logically so. To which some will reply that what's been written doesn't, or wouldn't have applied to DOGE since any savings wouldn't free up money as much as the savings would reduce government borrowing. More realistically, it would just free up Treasury to borrow $2 trillion more in the future. With our federal government, no act of not borrowing subtracts from borrowing. It's all worth keeping in mind as conservatives in particular lament the failure of the latest gallant, but surely quixotic attempt to shrink the size and cost of government. These initiatives never work simply because in government as with individuals, money saved is never money that's not spent.
