How Trump AI Law Could Spark a constitutional Crisis
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Trump's big beautiful bill may have passed the House, but experts have told Newsweek that the legislation's provisions on artificial intelligence could face an even greater challenge in the courts.
The bill impacts a huge range of policy areas and industries, but its ban on states' ability to enforce AI regulations could be one of the most legally challenged parts, as it arguably contradicts existing state laws.
The Context
The more than 1,000-page bill passed 215-214 following days of negotiations. Republicans Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio voted against it, joining every House Democrat.
The bill, which includes about $4.9 trillion in tax breaks, was passed after weeks of negotiations and talks with Republicans, some of whom were concerned about constituents losing critical benefits and others who called for further budget cuts.
What To Know
Despite attempts during the Biden administration to create an AI Bill of Rights, the U.S. does not have any federally binding laws about how AI should be regulated.
If signed into law, Trump's bill would be the first on a federal level to dictate how states should treat artificial intelligence, after Trump abolished Biden's executive order on AI ethics and safety standards in January.
The bill calls for the end to all state AI regulations, and bans states from enforcing existing regulations, reading: "No state or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act."
Here's the problem: several states already have AI regulations, and many more could be on the way. Utah, California, and Colorado have all passed laws addressing rights and transparency surrounding AI development and usage, and 40 bills across over a dozen states are currently in the legislative process.
Margaret Hu, a professor of Law at William & Mary Law School and director of the Digital Democracy Lab, told Newsweek that Trump's bill could clash with states' status as "laboratories of democracy," which could see parts of the bill challenged in the courts if passed.
Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty
"Prohibiting or limiting states and local governments from regulating AI would likely face an immediate challenge in the courts," Hu said.
"Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, Congress can pass legislation that preempts states from regulating in specific fields. But in the absence of a comprehensive scheme of AI regulation or specific AI system regulation in federal law, the Constitution reserves broad regulatory authority for the states."
"States are 'laboratories of democracy.' In the context of a field as new as AI law and policy, states and municipalities have been 'AI law laboratories of democracy.' If and when an omnibus AI law is passed by Congress, then Congress can say: we're now regulating the field at the federal level and states should not interfere or pose an obstacle to federal regulation.
"But that's not where we are right now. It's highly problematic constitutionally for Congress to say: 'we don't want to regulate AI and we don't want states to regulate AI either.'"
What People Are Saying
Senate Majority Leader John Thune said on Wednesday that it would be unlikely that the bill would see any serious changes in the Senate, saying: "When it comes over here, I think [Speaker Mike Johnson] would like to see as little change to the product as possible, because they've cobbled together a delicate balance over there.
"The Senate will have its imprint on it."
What Happens Next
Trump's bill is now headed for the Senate, which it will need to pass before the president can sign it into law.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
24 minutes ago
- Politico
Israel presses ahead with strikes as Trump's 2-week deadline looms
Israeli officials insisted Friday that they will keep up their bombing campaign against Iran, even as President Donald Trump has given Tehran a two-week deadline to come to some sort of diplomatic deal that reins in its nuclear program. Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, laid out his country's case at the U.N. Security Council, facing off Friday with Iranian representatives who urged the world to stop the Israeli strikes. 'Israel will not stop. Not until Iran's nuclear threat is dismantled, not until its war machine is disarmed, not until our people and yours are safe,' Danon declared. The Israeli assertions highlight how Trump's statement that he'll decide 'in the next two weeks' whether to strike Iranian nuclear sites provides an opportunity to Israel as much as it puts pressure on Iran. For Iran, it's two weeks to come to some sort of diplomatic deal with the U.S. that constrains its nuclear, and possibly other, programs. For Israel, it's a focused timeframe to do as much damage as it can to Iran's nuclear and broader military infrastructure before the U.S. may pressure it to accept a diplomatic solution. The more damage Israel does, the more it could weaken an enemy and improve the odds that Iran will capitulate to U.S. demands in the diplomatic process. The strikes themselves couldthreaten the survival of Iran's Islamist regime. Trump told reporters on Friday that he wasn't about to push Israel to halt its assault in Iran while he weighs what the U.S. should do. 'It's very hard to make that request right now,' Trump said. 'If somebody is winning, it's a little bit harder to do than if somebody is losing, but we're ready, willing and able, and we've been speaking to Iran, and we'll see what happens.' A senior administration official, granted anonymity to speak about the president's thinking, said 'everything is still on the table.' 'This is about giving this a little time and seeing if things look any different in a couple weeks,' the official said. Trump's 'two-week' window was delivered Thursday by press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who said, quoting Trump, that his delay in determining whether to join Israel's attack on Iran was 'based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future.' Trump often says he'll make decisions in two weeks, only to extend his deadline again or never follow through. Still, Israel and Iran appear to believe the next two weeks will be a crucial phase. Iranian officials showed up for nuclear talks with European officials on Friday in Geneva; Israel pressed ahead with its bombing campaign against Iran, which is responding with missiles. Iranian officials met Friday with European envoys in Geneva in an attempt to revitalize the diplomatic process. The talks ended on an ambiguous note. Iranian officials have said their participation in future talks would hinge on Israel stopping its attacks. Some European representatives said talks should continue regardless, even as they urged both sides to avoid escalation. 'We invited the Iranian minister to consider negotiations with all sides, including the United States, without awaiting the cessation of strikes, which we also hope for,' French foreign minister Jean-Noel Barrot said. For Israel, the most critical, but perhaps toughest, official objective is eliminating Iran's nuclear facility at Fordo. That facility is buried deep underground, and Israel has been hoping Trump will enter the fight and use special, massive U.S. bombs to destroy it. There are concerns, however, including among Republicans, that Iran could retaliate against U.S. assets if America enters the conflict on any level, dragging America into another Middle Eastern war. Trump campaigned on avoiding such wars. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hinted that Israel has means to destroy Fordo on its own. It's not clear what those methods could involve, but Israel has significant intelligence operations inside Iran and it has often surprised even Washington with its capabilities. Either way, current and former Israeli officials said they saw no reason for Israel to back off its strikes now, despite calls for deescalation from some world capitals. The more Israel degrades Iran's capabilities, the less able Tehran will be to mount retaliatory attacks on Israel or the United States, should the latter choose to enter the war. From the beginning, 'the Israeli planning was based on the assumption that we have to do it alone,' said a former Israeli diplomat familiar with the situation. The person, like others, was granted anonymity to discuss highly sensitive issues. It's unclear whether there is any deal with Iran that Israel would deem strong enough. There is tremendous distrust of Iran's Islamist regime within Israel's security establishment, leading to a sense that Iran would cheat on any deal. Another unsettled question is whether a deal with Iran will cover only its nuclear program or also curb its ballistic missile initiative and support for proxy militias in the region. Some analysts have argued that Netanyahu decided to begin attacking Iran last week because he was worried earlier nuclear talks between Iran and the Trump administration would yield too weak a deal. If new efforts at diplomacy yield fruit, Trump could pressure Netanyahu to accept whatever deal emerges, potentially even by threatening to withhold weapons and other equipment Israel needs to defend itself against Iran. The war is costly for Israel, which has been fighting on multiple fronts — in particular against Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip — since October 2023. As one Israeli official said, Iranian missile attacks feel like 'Russian roulette' to Israeli citizens.
Associated Press
24 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Trump says Gabbard was 'wrong' about Iran and Israeli strikes could be 'very hard to stop'
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Friday that his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was 'wrong' when she previously said that the U.S. believed Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon, and he suggested that it would be 'very hard to stop' Israel's strikes on Iran in order to negotiate a possible ceasefire. Trump has recently taken a more aggressive public stance toward Tehran as he's sought more time to weigh whether to attack Iran by striking its well-defended Fordo uranium enrichment facility. Buried under a mountain, the facility is believed to be out of the reach of all but America's 'bunker-buster' bombs. After landing in New Jersey for an evening fundraiser for his super political action committee, Trump was asked about Gabbard's comments to Congress in March that U.S. spy agencies believed that Iran wasn't working on nuclear warheads. The president responded, 'Well then, my intelligence community is wrong. Who in the intelligence community said that?' Informed that it had been Gabbard, Trump said, 'She's wrong.' In a subsequent post on X, Gabbard said her testimony was taken out of context 'as a way to manufacture division.' 'America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly,' she wrote. 'President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree.' Still, disavowing Gabbard's previous assessment came a day after the White House said Trump would decide within two weeks whether the U.S. military would get directly involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran. It said seeking additional time was 'based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future.' But on Friday, Trump himself seemed to cast doubts on the possibility of talks leading to a pause in fighting between Israel and Iran. He said that, while he might support a ceasefire, Israel's strikes on Iran could be 'very hard to stop.' Asked about Iran suggesting that, if the U.S. was serious about furthering negotiations, it could call on Israel to stop its strikes, Trump responded, 'I think it's very hard to make that request right now.' 'If somebody is winning, it's a little bit harder to do than if somebody is losing,' Trump said. 'But we're ready, willing and able, and we've been speaking to Iran, and we'll see what happens.' The president later added, 'It's very hard to stop when you look at it.' 'Israel's doing well in terms of war. And, I think, you would say that Iran is doing less well. It's a little bit hard to get somebody to stop,' Trump said. Trump campaigned on decrying 'endless wars' and has vowed to be an international peacemaker. That's led some, even among conservatives, to point to Trump's past criticism of the U.S. invasion of Iraq beginning in 2003 as being at odds with his more aggressive stance toward Iran now. Trump suggested the two situations were very different, though. 'There were no weapons of mass destruction. I never thought there were. And that was somewhat pre-nuclear. You know, it was, it was a nuclear age, but nothing like it is today,' Trump said of his past criticism of the administration of President George W. Bush. He added of Iran's current nuclear program, 'It looked like I'm right about the material that they've gathered already. It's a tremendous amount of material.' Trump also cast doubts on Iran's developing nuclear capabilities for civilian pursuits, like power generation. 'You're sitting on one of the largest oil piles anywhere in the world,' he said. 'It's a little bit hard to see why you'd need that.' ____
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump: ‘Maybe I'll have to change my mind' about firing Powell
President Trump on Friday floated the possibility of firing Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell as part of his latest round of intense criticism of the leader of the central bank over its decision not to lower interest rates. Trump, in a lengthy post on Truth Social, railed against Powell, labeling him a 'numbskull,' 'a dumb guy,' 'and an obvious Trump Hater.' Trump appointed Powell to the post in 2017. 'I fully understand that my strong criticism of him makes it more difficult for him to do what he should be doing, lowering Rates, but I've tried it all different ways,' Trump posted. 'I've been nice, I've been neutral, and I've been nasty, and nice and neutral didn't work!' The post included a graphic showing how the United States' central bank rate compared to other nations. 'I don't know why the Board doesn't override this Total and Complete Moron!' Trump added 'Maybe, just maybe, I'll have to change my mind about firing him? But regardless, his Term ends shortly!' Powell's term ends in 2026. He said last November he would not step down if Trump asked, and that it is 'not permitted under the law' for the president to fire or demote him or any of the other Fed governors with leadership positions. Trump in April said he had no intention of firing Powell, though he has in recent days ratcheted up his criticism amid frustration over the Fed's handling of interest rates. Fed officials kicked off the year expecting to continue cutting interest rates as inflation drifted back toward its ideal annual level of 2 percent. But the bank has held off through the first half of 2025 amid the uncertainty driven by Trump's tariff plans. Powell reiterated his call for patience Wednesday, after the Fed kept rates steady once again.
