Estimated read time: 3-4 minutes
- Some Utah Republicans oppose Trump's AI regulation executive order, citing state overreach.
- Gov. Cox and Rep. Cutler advocate state-led AI regulation to protect consumers, particularly children.
- Trump's order faces criticism for bypassing Congress and risking state regulatory power.
SALT LAKE CITY — Several Utah Republicans have spoken out against an executive order from President Donald Trump that aims to restrict states' abilities to regulate artificial intelligence, with one state lawmaker calling the order federal overreach.
Trump signed the order in the Oval Office Thursday, telling reporters the industry could be hurt by a patchwork of state laws with various regulations. He framed the issue around the race to develop general artificial intelligence with China, saying that "there's only going to be one winner."
"We have the big investment coming, but if they had to get 50 different approvals from 50 different states, you can forget it because it's impossible to do," the president said, according to the Associated Press.
Some Utah Republicans see it differently, however, and say the states are able to respond more nimbly to the emerging technology and see regulations as important to prevent harms to consumers, families and children.
"An alternative AI executive order focused on human flourishing would strike the balance we need: safeguard our kids, preserve our values and strengthen American competitiveness," Utah Gov. Spencer Cox posted on X ahead of Trump's order. "States must help protect children and families while America accelerates its leadership in AI."
State Rep. Paul Cutler, R-Centerville, agreed, saying it's not a "binary choice between child safety and AI.
"We can absolutely protect children/families AND support innovative AI development," he said in response to Cox's post. "States are leading the way on this now, we just need our friends in DC to get on board."
Utah is one of only four states with laws regulating artificial intelligence across the private sector, and the issue is one that continues to be on the minds of state leaders. Cox has long lambasted social media companies for harms he says their platforms have unleashed on citizens.
He announced a state "pro-human" AI initiative last week, saying he hopes to utilize the technology to promote human flourishing and avoid it being used to "strip mine our souls" as he described social media.
Utah's laws have created a state-run AI policy lab for regulators to work with innovators on the latest technological advancements. The state also clarified consumer protection liability for AI and requires companies to disclose AI use in industries like finance and mental health.
Trump's executive order — which would direct the attorney general to form a task force to challenge state regulations in the courts — isn't the first threat to states' ability to set AI policy. The Republican tax and spending bill passed in July initially included a 10-year moratorium on state regulations of AI, but that was stripped from the final version after bipartisan pushback.
Utah Rep. Doug Fiefia, R-Herriman, was one of those who lobbied against the moratorium, and said Trump's new order "is an overreaching act that fundamentally disregards the 10th Amendment and the necessary role of the states in technology governance."
"While I support a singular national framework, it must be developed through the proper legislative process in Congress to ensure full debate and transparency, not through unilateral action that threatens state funding with no federal standard to replace it with," he told KSL Friday. "Because AI is evolving so quickly, states are closer to the ground and uniquely positioned to adjust quickly and develop tailored regulations."
Whether Congress plans to act on AI remains to be seen, and other Republican critics of Trump's order appear skeptical. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis noted in a post earlier this week that executive orders can't supersede state law, but an act of Congress could.
"The problem is that Congress hasn't proposed any coherent regulatory scheme but instead just wanted to block states from doing anything for 10 years, which would be an AI amnesty," he posted Monday. "I doubt Congress has the votes to pass this because it is so unpopular with the public."
