Danger Lurks Within the Mega Bill: A Critical Opinion

Buried among the 1,116 pages of the " One Big Beautiful Bill " President Donald Trump wants the Republican-controlled Congress to approve in order to advance his agenda is that rarest of policy proposals pushed by Trump: an idea high-profile South Carolina GOP officials oppose.

It's a credit to them that they did their research and are pushing back on part of Trump's signature initiative. There is more to criticize in the bill, including the way it would increase the federal deficit by $2.8 trillion over the next decade, but that's a discussion for another day.

Today, let's focus on whether states should be able to regulate artificial intelligence.

Spoiler alert: They should.

Don't just take it from me. Take it from South Carolina's attorney general and Senate president, who have been at the forefront of growing bipartisan opposition to what would be a massive change, a national embrace with few protections of a field evolving too fast to comprehend.

Many people don't fully understand exactly what artificial intelligence is - or what it is capable of doing, right now. It's incredibly advanced, and while it can be used for good in many ways, it can also be used for ill. South Carolina, in fact, just approved regulations to criminalize the creation, possession and distribution of AI-generated sexual images of people without their consent.

Another bill introduced in the South Carolina General Assembly would ban the use of AI in campaign material 90 days before an election unless the material disclosed that the image, video or audio of a candidate was "manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence."

The South Carolina Daily Gazette reports that 25 states require disclosures when using AI or ban it altogether in campaign materials, citing the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Yet section 43201 of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act - yes, that is its official name - would prohibit states and localities "from limiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating artificial intelligence (AI) models, AI systems, or automated decision systems entered into interstate commerce for 10 years."

Exceptions to the freeze, worth reading in their entirety, would include a state law or regulation:

• the primary purpose and effect of which is to remove legal impediments to, facilitate the deployment or operation of, or consolidate administrative procedures in a manner that facilitates the adoption of AI models, AI systems, or automated decision systems;

• that does not impose substantive design, performance, data-handling, documentation, civil liability, taxation, fee, or other requirements on AI models, AI systems, or automated decision systems, unless such requirements are imposed under federal law or are generally applicable to other models and systems that perform similar functions;

• that imposes only fees and bonds that are reasonable and cost-based and treat other models and systems that perform similar functions in the same manner as AI models, AI systems, and automated decision systems; or

• the violation of which carries a criminal penalty.

The 10-year freeze is so unacceptable 40 of the nation's 50 state attorneys general, including South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, asked top Republican and Democratic politicians in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate to remove it in a bipartisan letter last month.

Their letter reads, "The impact of such a broad moratorium would be sweeping and wholly destructive of reasonable state efforts to prevent known harms associated with AI. This bill will affect hundreds of existing and pending state laws passed and considered by both Republican and Democratic state legislatures. Some existing laws have been on the books for many years."

SC AI laws may be cut for a decade under Fed budget bill. Here are affected laws

South Carolina Senate President Thomas C. Alexander has registered his opposition as well.

He and Jacqui Irwin, a member of the California Assembly, wrote a commentary in Governing this month headlined, "Congress Should Not Block State Action on AI." The two state lawmakers co-chair the National Conference of State Legislatures' Task Force on Artificial Intelligence, Cybersecurity and Privacy. They called the congressional plan draconian.

"Under our constitutional framework, states are not only permitted but obligated to act in the absence of federal action," Alexander and Irwin wrote. "We have both the right and responsibility to protect our constituents through laws that reflect distinct local contexts and challenges. A uniform approach must be earned through collaborative policymaking - not simply imposed through a draconian decadelong freeze that locks states out."

As quoted in The Hill, OpenAI co-founder and CEO Sam Altman sees it differently. The tech pioneer told a U.S. Senate committee that he supports "one federal framework that is light touch that we can understand and lets us move with the speed that this moment calls for." That would be "important and fine," he said. He said a state-by-state approach would be "burdensome."

Supporters of the freeze say it would help the U.S. compete with China as artificial intelligence explodes. It would do so by forcing states to agree to zero state AI regulations or risk losing federal broadband funding.

As succinctly outlined in a separate article in The Hill, the debate pits two core Republican principles against one another: the support of states' rights and the resistance to regulation.

Alexander and Irwin cut to the heart of the issue in their commentary, writing, "We believe AI can unlock new economic growth, akin to the advent of the internal combustion engine and the telephone. But even as new technologies bring opportunities, it is our duty as policymakers to think about potential downsides and address them appropriately."

It is their duty. Alexander is right. Wilson is right.

Tying the hands of lawmakers in all 50 states is not just bad government. It's bad for business. As the attorneys general wrote, this provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill "deprives consumers of reasonable protections" and is "neither respectful to states nor responsible public policy."

Let South Carolina and all 49 other states be incubators as we embrace new technologies. Don't tie state leaders' hands and feet. That's the surest way to stumble as we throw ourselves headlong into a future where artificial intelligence has real power to help and to harm people.