White House AI framework draws lawmakers' attention

The White House is backing a new national artificial intelligence regulatory framework, which it suggests will balance the need for innovation and concerns of everyday citizens.

But the Trump Administration is steadfast that the framework should be “applied uniformly across the United States,” which could put state legislative efforts in conflict.

While measures regulating AI chatbots and limiting the technology’s use in health insurance are being debated, the White House maintains that “a patchwork of conflicting state laws would undermine American innovation and our ability to lead in the global AI race.”

“The federal government is uniquely positioned to set a consistent national policy that enables us to win the AI race and deliver its benefits to the American people, while effectively addressing the policy challenges that accompany this transformative technology,” they said.

The administration said it plans to lobby Congress to come up with legislation, but House Speaker Matt Huffman, R-Lima, recently told reporters he is unsure what such an approach would look like.

Pointing to the U.S. Constitution's commerce clause, as interpreted in a landmark 1824 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Huffman said Congress likely has the right to the intervene in the matter of AI policy.

“It seems to me that this is the kind of thing that is appropriate for the federal government to consider,” Huffman said. “Now, having said that, there are going to be issues that will remain local, including law enforcement, including protection of individual people, including minors.

“Those are all things that the federal government isn't going to or shouldn't, in my estimation, weigh in. So, we'll need to continue to put those protections in place.”

House Minority Leader Dani Isaacsohn said he would welcome “responsible” benchmarks from the feds, but noted that state governments have had to mostly fill the regulatory void.

Central in building out federal legislation should be impacts on workforce, which the Cincinnati Democrat projects could affect millions of laborers.

“We are not prepared for the economic shocks that are coming from artificial intelligence, and so we absolutely should have a federal response," he said. "But in the absence of federal action, we have seen states at least attempt to step up and be the adults in the room to try and anticipate what's coming and take some responsible action."

The national framework focuses on six objectives, such as protecting children’s privacy and managing their device use, creating a workforce ready to implement AI at the workplace, and preventing censorship. It also urges that the data centers needed to deploy the technology will not lead to massive increases for ratepayers.

Rep. Christine Cockley, D-Columbus, said she could get behind some of the tenets of the plan, pointing to her proposal that would hold chatbots liable if they encouraged users to harm themselves or others as a similar idea (HB 524).

On the other side, she found parts of the framework contradictory.

“To me, it's a bunch of recommendations without a clear pathway of how to get there,” she said in an interview.

Cockley serves on the House Technology & Innovation Committee, which is reviewing HB524 in addition to plans proposing voluntary safety verification standards for AI models (HB 628) and broadly barring political subdivisions from restricting the use of the technology (HB 392).

Prior to the Legislature’s April break, Chair Rep. Thad Claggett, R-Newark, indicated that he wants the panel to spend time reviewing the framework as it could impact members' work.

“This is a suggestion document to the Congress and [how] they deal with some of these issues and how fast they act has a bearing on how we act,” he said.

Cockley said states need to retain the ability to regulate AI as they see fit — a point made by Republicans and Democrats alike when President Donald Trump called for a moratorium on state’s AI laws.

“I think one of the biggest pieces to me is making sure that…we aren't centralizing power with the federal government, because our local and state officials are witnessing what's happening at home,” she said.