A $150 Million AI Lobbying War is Brewing Over Preemption
The highly anticipated debate over federal preemption in artificial intelligence (AI) policy has sparked a heated lobbying battle between Silicon Valley-backed companies and safety-focused donor networks. The National Defense Authorization Act, which must pass before the end of the year, poses a critical juncture for these competing interests.
The White House has floated an executive order on preemption that could override state rules, further fueling the controversy. Both sides are now mobilizing their networks of Super PACs, donors, and advocacy groups to shape the outcome. The stakes are high, with the fate of AI regulation hanging in the balance.
On one side is Public First, a bipartisan initiative backed by former Representatives Chris Stewart and Brad Carson, which aims to ensure "meaningful oversight" of the most powerful technology ever created. This group has launched two affiliated Super PACs and expects to raise at least $50 million for the 2026 cycle. They argue that states are operating as laboratories that reveal what works, provide early enforcement, and supply evidence needed to shape a future federal law with meaningful protections.
On the opposing side is Leading the Future (LTF), a coalition backed by GOP strategist Zac Moffatt and Democratic operative Josh Vlasto. This group operates through a multi-layered structure, including federal and state Super PACs, nonprofit advocacy arms, and grassroots organizing efforts. LTF's message is that a patchwork of state laws will cost American jobs and cede AI leadership to China.
The two coalitions diverge sharply on the role of federal preemption. Public First argues that a single national standard is essential to maintain competitiveness, while LTF frames state laws as costly barriers that could slow the development and deployment of advanced systems. The scale of spending reveals how quickly AI has moved to the center of American politics.
As the window for resolving this fight narrows, Congress faces a critical decision point about including preemption language in the National Defense Authorization Act. With AI's economic impact and labor displacement rising as voter concerns, the outcome will have far-reaching implications for the future of artificial intelligence regulation in the United States.
The irony is that both sides are funded by powerful interests, with Silicon Valley investors pouring hundreds of millions into LTF's efforts, while safety-focused donor networks support Public First. The real question is not who has more money or influence but what kind of regulatory framework will be put in place to govern this rapidly evolving technology.
Ultimately, the preemption showdown pits competing visions for AI governance against each other. One side seeks to establish a unified federal law that would preempt state regulations, while the other argues that states have filled a policy vacuum and should continue to play a role in regulating AI.
The outcome will set the tone for the nation's approach to artificial intelligence regulation, with significant implications for workers, consumers, and the economy. As the battle rages on, one thing is clear: the future of AI governance in America hangs precariously in the balance.
The highly anticipated debate over federal preemption in artificial intelligence (AI) policy has sparked a heated lobbying battle between Silicon Valley-backed companies and safety-focused donor networks. The National Defense Authorization Act, which must pass before the end of the year, poses a critical juncture for these competing interests.
The White House has floated an executive order on preemption that could override state rules, further fueling the controversy. Both sides are now mobilizing their networks of Super PACs, donors, and advocacy groups to shape the outcome. The stakes are high, with the fate of AI regulation hanging in the balance.
On one side is Public First, a bipartisan initiative backed by former Representatives Chris Stewart and Brad Carson, which aims to ensure "meaningful oversight" of the most powerful technology ever created. This group has launched two affiliated Super PACs and expects to raise at least $50 million for the 2026 cycle. They argue that states are operating as laboratories that reveal what works, provide early enforcement, and supply evidence needed to shape a future federal law with meaningful protections.
On the opposing side is Leading the Future (LTF), a coalition backed by GOP strategist Zac Moffatt and Democratic operative Josh Vlasto. This group operates through a multi-layered structure, including federal and state Super PACs, nonprofit advocacy arms, and grassroots organizing efforts. LTF's message is that a patchwork of state laws will cost American jobs and cede AI leadership to China.
The two coalitions diverge sharply on the role of federal preemption. Public First argues that a single national standard is essential to maintain competitiveness, while LTF frames state laws as costly barriers that could slow the development and deployment of advanced systems. The scale of spending reveals how quickly AI has moved to the center of American politics.
As the window for resolving this fight narrows, Congress faces a critical decision point about including preemption language in the National Defense Authorization Act. With AI's economic impact and labor displacement rising as voter concerns, the outcome will have far-reaching implications for the future of artificial intelligence regulation in the United States.
The irony is that both sides are funded by powerful interests, with Silicon Valley investors pouring hundreds of millions into LTF's efforts, while safety-focused donor networks support Public First. The real question is not who has more money or influence but what kind of regulatory framework will be put in place to govern this rapidly evolving technology.
Ultimately, the preemption showdown pits competing visions for AI governance against each other. One side seeks to establish a unified federal law that would preempt state regulations, while the other argues that states have filled a policy vacuum and should continue to play a role in regulating AI.
The outcome will set the tone for the nation's approach to artificial intelligence regulation, with significant implications for workers, consumers, and the economy. As the battle rages on, one thing is clear: the future of AI governance in America hangs precariously in the balance.
This lobbying war over $150 million is wild 
Who knew AI could be so expensive? 
I mean, I know it's tech and all that, but come on! It feels like they're fighting over who gets to control the robot overlords 
. Seriously though, can't we just agree on some basic safety regulations already? 
Like, what if AI decides to kill us all with a giant laser beam? 
Do we really need Congress to decide that? 
This is getting crazy... I mean, who knew AI lobbying would get so expensive? Like $150 million just for one law 
. Can't we just have a balanced approach? Both sides seem to be losing sight of what's really important - protecting Americans from tech risks 
Not sure who'll come out on top, but I hope they figure it out before the year ends... 
$150 million lobbying war? That's wild! Like, I get it, AI tech is super important and we need to figure out how to regulate it properly. But come on, both sides are basically backed by deep pockets... it feels like a total conflict of interest 
. Can we please just figure this out already? 
And don't even get me started on the irony of both sides being funded by powerful interests. It's like they're playing a game where the winner gets to write the rules. The stakes are high, indeed – we could be looking at a future where AI is used to displace workers and undermine our very way of life.
That's like one new patent every 9 hours! 
The US is already behind China and Europe in AI adoption. 
We need better regulation ASAP! 
But how much of that $$$ is being spent on actual research vs propaganda? 
In 2025, we'll see a 25% increase in AI-related job losses due to automation. 
That's 1.4 MILLION jobs lost! 
