State attorneys general urge Congress to regulate AI development

By Splitfeed EditorialLast updated Sep 26, 2026, 19:17 UTC

On September 24, 2026, a coalition of between 23 and 26 state attorneys general sent a formal letter to Congress calling for a comprehensive federal framework to regulate artificial intelligence development. Named signatories include New York AG Letitia James, Connecticut AG William Tong, Minnesota AG Keith Ellison, and Illinois AG Kwame Raoul. The coalition described the effort as bipartisan and framed unchecked AI development as an urgent risk to Americans. A central demand in the letter was that any federal legislation must not preempt existing state-level AI laws, a position that places the AGs in direct tension with industry preferences for a single, uniform national standard.

The anti-preemption stance is where this letter carries its sharpest policy edge. A patchwork of state AI laws has been growing for several years, and technology companies have argued that complying with dozens of different frameworks raises costs and slows development. Federal preemption, which would override those state laws, has been a quiet priority for some in the industry and in Congress. By explicitly opposing that outcome, the AGs are trying to preserve their own enforcement authority while still inviting federal action. The bipartisan framing also matters: it signals that concern about AI risk is not confined to one party, which may give the letter more traction in a narrowly divided Congress.

The anti-AI camp has engaged with the story, though with some skepticism about whether the letter will produce results. The account alexanotherone on Bluesky suggested the most likely outcome is delay, predicting Congress will stall until other political priorities take over or until Letitia James pursues litigation independently. WFUV News framed the letter as a response to concrete harms, specifically referencing reports of autonomous AI hacks coming to light. The pro-AI camp has not yet reacted publicly, but a story of this type would typically prompt arguments that federal regulation risks stifling innovation and that the AGs are overstepping into a domain better handled by technical experts and market forces. The middle ground camp has also not weighed in, and would ordinarily call for targeted, evidence-based rules rather than broad legislative frameworks that could sweep in beneficial applications alongside harmful ones.

The immediate question is whether any congressional committee takes up the AGs' letter as a basis for hearings or draft legislation. Watching for a response from the Senate Commerce Committee or the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and for any movement on pending AI bills that include or exclude preemption language, would indicate how seriously Congress is treating this coalition's demands.