Analysis: US Senate blocks Trump's 10-year AI freeze 99 to 1

The US Senate has sent a firm message to the White House, voting 99-1 against a proposed 10-year halt on AI regulation. The moratorium formed a part of US President Donald Trump’s broad package of domestic legislation, known as the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’. 

The clause would have barred individual states from passing their own AI-related laws for a decade, halting action on issues like political misinformation and explicit deepfake content.

Senate turns down AI freeze across party lines

The rejected moratorium sat within the framework of the White House’s sweeping policy package, pitched as a domestic reform plan. 

The clause aimed to stop states from enacting or enforcing AI laws for 10 years, which opponents argue would have left communities and creators vulnerable to harm from unchecked technology.

Senators from both parties joined forces to back an amendment removing the moratorium from the bill. Among the co-sponsors of that amendment were Senators Ed Markey, Maria Cantwell and Marsha Blackburn.

Ed Markey made his position clear after the vote, saying: “This 99-1 vote sent a clear message that Congress will not sell out our kids and local communities in order to pad the pockets of Big Tech billionaires.”

The moratorium had previously been tied to federal funding for broadband and internet infrastructure.

Senate Republicans on the Commerce Committee had attempted to attach the freeze to financial incentives earlier in the month, but the vote result shows the strength of the opposition.

The outcome is a blow to firms that lobbied for long-term regulatory shelter as scrutiny intensifies over the societal impact of Gen AI and algorithmic decision-making.

Cyber harm, deepfakes and AI copyright in the spotlight

Technology and privacy experts say the Senate vote gives states the ability to continue enacting AI laws at a time when issues like non-consensual explicit images, political deepfakes and copyright infringement are becoming increasingly common.

Luiza Jarovsky, Co-Founder of the AI, Tech & Privacy Academy, welcomes the result but cautions against complacency. 

“Ideally, the next step would be a comprehensive federal law regulating AI,” she says.

“However, given how things have progressed in the privacy field, I'm not so hopeful. At least, US states will be able to continue doing their job and regulating AI, although in a fragmented manner.”

The decision also touches on the ongoing fight over intellectual property. AI systems are often trained on copyrighted works such as books, music and artwork, raising legal and ethical concerns. 

Many artists argue that their creations are being used without permission or pay.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman acknowledges this tension and supports better compensation models for creators. 

“If I was an artist, a) I would like to be able to opt out of people generating art in my style and b) if they do generate art in my style I’d like to have some kind of economic model associated with that,” he explains.

By rejecting the moratorium, the Senate preserves the legal foundation for artists and states to continue challenging unlicensed data use in AI model training.

Grassroots campaigners claim influence as bill returns to House

Beyond the vote itself, advocates point to public and civil society pressure as a key part of the bill’s undoing. Groups working on AI accountability and public interest mobilisation were quick to organise against the freeze.

Zamaan Qureshi, Senior Campaigns Associate at Accountable Tech, credits collective advocacy for swaying the outcome.

“There are countless names to thank for their tireless work to kill the disastrous AI moratorium in the Senate that crashed in a 99-1 vote because of the relentless advocacy of advocates, organisations, parents, Senators and staff,” he says.

“We can move mountains, as we did in a matter of a day or so, to prevent the passage of a significant provision in the reconciliation package that threatened to do a decade of harm.”

Deb Donig, faculty lecturer at the University of California, Berkeley, sees broader implications in the decision. 

“This is a fascinating and important change in the trajectory of AI regulation, and the failure of the provision may have important implications for both the future of AI regulation, as well as the future of state rights,” she says.

“It's also important to recognise the work of political and civil rights action groups in this moment. Now, perhaps more than ever, we are seeing the importance of grassroots political movements in impacting the future of tech regulation.”

The bill now returns to the House of Representatives where lawmakers must decide whether to accept the Senate’s changes.

President Trump’s deadline of 4 July for signing the bill into law is now in doubt. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene had previously said she would oppose the bill unless the AI provision was removed.

Ilana Beller from consumer advocacy group Public Citizen echoes relief shared by others.

“State legislatures all across the country have done critical bipartisan work to protect the American people from some of the most dangerous harms of AI technology,” she insists.

“The defeat of this moratorium will mean vital protections remain in place for millions of Americans.”