The biggest AI companies in the world got tired of waiting for Congress. So they started writing the rules themselves, one state capitol at a time.

Major AI laboratories have shifted their lobbying and policy efforts toward state legislatures, actively shaping bills that will govern how artificial intelligence is developed, deployed, and regulated. The pivot comes as federal lawmakers have failed to produce a comprehensive national AI framework, leaving a vacuum that companies are now racing to fill on their own terms.

A patchwork quilt nobody asked for

By the end of the 2025 legislative session, all 50 states and Washington D.C. had introduced bills related to artificial intelligence. Of those, 38 states enacted roughly 100 distinct measures covering everything from content ownership to critical infrastructure risk management and whistleblower protections.

Since 2019, over 800 AI-related bills have been proposed at the state level.

California, Colorado, New York, and Texas have been among the most aggressive movers, establishing AI-specific statutes targeting employment decisions, healthcare applications, and consumer protection.

Rather than face hostile legislation drafted without industry input, AI firms are embedding themselves in the drafting process. They’re providing technical expertise to legislators who, in many cases, lack the background to evaluate AI risks independently. The result is legislation that often reflects industry preferences on critical questions like liability thresholds, transparency requirements, and enforcement timelines.

The White House tries to catch up

The Trump administration made its own move in December 2025, issuing an executive order aimed at establishing a national AI policy framework. The order created an AI Litigation Task Force, given a 30-day mandate to begin evaluating state laws that might conflict with national standards.

The legal theory underpinning the task force centers on interstate commerce preemption, the idea that federal authority can override state regulations when they create undue burdens on cross-border business activity.

David Sacks was named the White House Special Advisor for AI and Crypto in December 2025. The dual portfolio signals the administration’s view that artificial intelligence and digital asset policy are converging, and that governance of both sectors should be coordinated rather than siloed.

What this means for investors

The immediate impact of 800-plus state-level bills is cost. Compliance infrastructure doesn’t build itself. Companies operating in multiple states need legal teams, policy analysts, and technical staff dedicated to tracking and implementing varying requirements.

If the AI Litigation Task Force succeeds in striking down conflicting state laws and replacing them with a coherent national standard, the barrier to entry drops for everyone.

Projects integrating blockchain infrastructure with AI capabilities currently face regulatory uncertainty from both sectors simultaneously. A coordinated federal approach under Sacks’ dual mandate could either streamline oversight for these hybrid projects or subject them to doubled scrutiny.