Columnist warns Big Tech push for federal preemption could sideline state AI safeguards

A Washington-based advocate is urging Tennesseans to resist what he describes as a Big Tech effort to sideline state oversight of artificial intelligence by pushing for federal preemption. In a guest opinion column, Brendan Steinhauser contends that technology companies want Washington to bar states from enacting their own AI safeguards, a move he says would weaken protections for families and communities.

Steinhauser argues that companies including Meta and OpenAI seek a “free pass” from state rules governing advanced AI. He writes that the Trump administration recently released a federal framework for AI that includes preemption, a prospect he says is welcomed by industry leaders who want to limit scrutiny.

In his view, federal preemption would prevent state lawmakers from addressing how AI is developed and deployed within their borders. Citing public sentiment, Steinhauser says more than 70 percent of Americans worry AI will permanently eliminate too many jobs and notes that tens of thousands of AI-linked job losses have already been reported in the United States.

He adds that approval of Silicon Valley is falling, saying three-quarters of Americans are critical of prominent tech CEOs such as Mark Zuckerberg and Sam Altman, which he argues helps explain why AI remains broadly unpopular.

Pointing to legal risks, he writes that, in a landmark case, Meta and YouTube were recently found liable for negligence in the design and operation of their platforms, which he links to addiction among teenagers and other users. At the same time, he says, frontier AI companies are spending heavily on development and on political races at both the federal and state levels to oppose safeguards and target critics in both parties.

He also describes David Sacks as a former White House “AI czar” and an ally who, in his telling, attacks Silicon Valley’s critics on behalf of Big Tech. Steinhauser frames the debate as a test of federalism.

“Federal preemption is not democracy,” he argues, asserting that the executive branch does not have the power to overturn state laws and that states—Tennessee included—serve as “laboratories of democracy” more responsive to citizens than Washington. He contends preemption would strip states of the ability to respond to harms he associates with AI, ranging from chatbot-related teen suicide to mass job loss.

He maintains that Americans across the political spectrum broadly agree on the need for secure, safe AI. Supporting effective safeguards, he writes, is not anti-AI and would not cost the United States an “AI race” against China or other rivals. “Two things can be true,” he says: the country needs AI and accountability for Silicon Valley.

Steinhauser calls on parents, workers and other Tennesseans to speak up, contact elected representatives and oppose what he characterizes as a Big Tech power grab. His bottom line: state-level AI protections should stand, and federal preemption should not override them.

Steinhauser is CEO of the Alliance for Secure AI, a Washington, DC-based nonprofit organization.