According to Forbes, artificial intelligence has sparked a $150 million political war over federal preemption that’s dividing Washington. Two coalitions are racing to shape outcomes, with one side backed by Silicon Valley investors like Marc Andreessen and OpenAI’s Greg Brockman pushing for a single federal framework through groups like Leading the Future and its $100 million war chest. The other side, funded by safety-focused donors and including former Representatives Chris Stewart and Brad Carson’s Public First initiative, aims to preserve state authority and expects to raise $50 million for the 2026 cycle. Congress faces immediate decisions about including preemption language in the National Defense Authorization Act while the White House considers an executive order that could override state rules. The battle involves multiple Super PACs, think tanks like Americans for Responsible Innovation, and even employee networks from companies like Anthropic, making this one of the fastest-moving policy fights in recent memory.
The preemption fight explained
Here’s the thing about preemption – it sounds boring but it’s actually the whole ballgame. Basically, if the feds pass a weak AI law that preempts state regulations, that could block places like California and New York from implementing their own stronger protections. The pro-industry side argues we need one national standard to compete with China and avoid a “patchwork” of state laws. But the safety advocates counter that states are acting as laboratories of democracy, testing what works while Congress remains gridlocked.
And honestly, both sides have a point. A truly fragmented regulatory landscape could create compliance nightmares for companies. But a federal law written by industry to basically prevent any real regulation? That seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The reality is we’re probably heading toward some messy middle ground where certain aspects get federal standards while states retain authority elsewhere.
The players and their politics
What’s fascinating here is how this cuts across traditional political lines. You’ve got Chris Stewart wearing two hats – leading Public First’s safety-focused efforts while also heading the AI team at the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute that wants rapid innovation and federal preemption. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.
Then there’s the money trail. Leading the Future’s $100 million from Silicon Valley heavyweights isn’t exactly subtle about its intentions. They’re explicitly targeting candidates who support regulation, like New York’s Alex Bores who wrote the RAISE Act. Meanwhile, the safety side draws from effective altruism circles and employees at safety-focused labs like Anthropic – The New York Times even reported they’ve explored their own Super PAC to counter LTF’s spending.
State action gaining momentum
While everyone’s fighting over federal preemption, states aren’t waiting around. California already passed the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, and New York has the RAISE Act moving forward. These laws require safety disclosures, risk assessments, and can impose massive fines – up to thirty million dollars in New York’s case.
The safety coalition argues this state-level action is crucial because it creates actual enforcement and generates evidence about what works. Build American AI, LTF’s advocacy arm, pushes back hard, with director Nathan Leamer arguing on X that “the US won the Internet economy because we established a national framework.” But here’s the question – did we really win the internet economy, or did we create a handful of monopolies while privacy and security suffered?
What’s really at stake here
Look, $150 million doesn’t get spent on something unimportant. This fight will determine whether AI gets the light-touch regulatory treatment that social media enjoyed in its early days, or whether we actually learn from past mistakes. The crypto industry already proved that concentrated spending in state races can reshape federal debates – now AI is following the same playbook.
Meta’s jumping in with state-level PACs, the America First crowd wants to repeal “regulatory overhead,” and everyone’s framing this as an existential competition with China. But here’s what worries me – when industry outspends public interest groups 2-to-1, whose interests do you think will ultimately prevail? The window for getting this right is closing fast, and with AI’s economic impact becoming a voter concern, this $150 million war might just be the opening salvo.
