California AG Urges Senate Not to Override State AI Regulations With One Big Beautiful Bill Act

‘A ban on state AI regulation could rob millions of Americans of rights they already enjoy,’ California Attorney General Rob Bonta said.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta (R) speaks as California Gov. Gavin Newsom looks on during a news conference at Gemperle Orchard in Ceres, Calif., on April 16, 2025. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

California Attorney General Rob Bonta has joined his counterparts from five states in urging U.S. senators to strike a provision in the proposed federal budget reconciliation bill—known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—that would impose a 10-year ban on states enacting laws or regulations on artificial intelligence (AI) and automated decision-making technology.

In a letter dated June 23, Bonta, as part of the Consortium of Privacy Regulators, argued that states need to be able to respond to AI technology developments so that they can protect the privacy of consumers.

“Leaders nationwide—across both sides of the aisle—are sounding the alarm: a ban on state AI regulation could rob millions of Americans of rights they already enjoy and end states’ ability to swiftly respond to emerging and evolving privacy challenges spurred by AI technology,” Bonta said in a June 22 statement.

“States are often on the front lines of developing strong privacy and technology protections for their residents—I urge lawmakers to remove the 10-year AI regulation ban provision on states and allow this important work to continue.”

The Consortium of Privacy Regulators is a bipartisan group that includes the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) and state attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, and Oregon, according to the CPPA.

The letter was signed by the attorneys general of those states as well as CPPA Executive Director Tom Kemp and the attorney general of Vermont, who is not a member of the consortium.

The consortium argued that states have traditionally taken the lead in creating privacy and technology regulations, in part because state privacy officials are on the front lines of handling consumer complaints. The letter also noted that state privacy laws already apply to the AI sector, particularly in ensuring that consumers are informed about how their personal information will be used.

“We object to any proposal that would unduly constrain states’ authority to regulate AI, whether it’s a straightforward preemption of state law, or conditioning federal funds on compliance with federal policy,” the consortium stated in the letter.

The moratorium on AI enforcement in the federal budget reconciliation bill would remove the ability of states to protect consumer rights, according to the consortium.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick defended the moratorium in a social media post on June 25, saying the president’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act is “non-negotiable for our national security.“

“By creating a single national standard for AI, the bill ends the chaos of 50 different state laws and makes sure American companies can develop cutting-edge tech for our military, infrastructure, and critical industries—without interference from anti-innovation politicians,” Lutnick said. “This is required to stay ahead of our adversaries and keep America at the forefront of AI.”

In 2018, California passed the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). Under the law, businesses must respond to consumer requests to exercise their rights and must notify consumers of their privacy practices. The law also gives consumers the option to opt out of the sale or sharing of their personal information for targeted advertising.

The consortium’s letter stated that the enforcement moratorium would undermine protections such as the CCPA and similar laws in other states.

“The state privacy laws ... are working as intended—protecting consumer privacy while allowing businesses to thrive and innovate,” the consortium wrote. “Indeed, the tech sector’s ability to adapt and thrive among these state privacy regimes demonstrates that regional protections do not impede business operations or technological advancement.”

In May, Bonta sent a letter to Congress along with 40 attorneys general from both sides of the aisle expressing a similar sentiment.

“I strongly oppose any effort to block states from developing and enforcing common-sense regulation; states must be able to protect their residents by responding to emerging and evolving AI technology,” Bonta said at the time.

Bonta issued legal advisories in January alerting consumers of their rights, as well as reminding AI businesses of their duty under California law.

At the federal level, officials are discussing the importance of staying ahead of China in AI development. In February, U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright compared AI to a present-day Manhattan Project.

“More than 70 years ago, these labs played an important role in the greatest scientific and engineering concerted effort in history: the Manhattan Project,” Wright said in a statement.

“Today, we are again calling on the brilliant minds of our great nation to win the next race: AI. This rapidly evolving technology will have enormous impacts on our national security, and President Trump and I remain committed to leveraging our nation’s unparalleled research and development infrastructure to win this great power competition.”

Also in February, Vice President JD Vance warned of the threat posed by regimes that gain access to AI technology.

“As they do with other tech, some authoritarian regimes have stolen and used AI to strengthen their military, intelligence, and surveillance capabilities; capture foreign data; and create propaganda to undermine other nations’ national security,” Vance said at the Artificial Intelligence Action Summit in Paris.