119 HR 5388 IH: American Artificial Intelligence Leadership and Uniformity Act
U.S. House of Representatives
2025-09-16
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.
I
119th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 5388
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 16, 2025
Mr. Baumgartner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
A BILL
To provide a national framework to sustain American leadership in artificial intelligence, to require an actionable Federal plan aligned to that policy, and to establish a temporary moratorium preempting certain State laws that restrict artificial intelligence models and systems engaged in interstate commerce.
1.

Short title
This Act may be cited as the “American Artificial Intelligence Leadership and Uniformity Act”.
2.

Definitions
In this Act:
(1)

Artificial intelligence or “AI”
The term “artificial intelligence” has the meaning given such term in section 5002 of the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020 (15 U.S.C. 9401 note).
(2)

Artificial intelligence model
The term “artificial intelligence model” means a software component of an information system that implements artificial intelligence technology and uses computational, statistical, or machine-learning techniques to produce outputs from a defined set of inputs.
(3)

Artificial intelligence system
The term “artificial intelligence system” means any data system, hardware, tool, or utility that operates, in whole or in part, using artificial intelligence.
(4)

Automated decision system
The term “automated decision system” means any computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence that issues a simplified output, including a score, classification, or recommendation, to materially influence or replace human decision-making.
3.

Findings
The Congress finds the following:
(1)
The United States stands at a new frontier of scientific discovery driven by transformative technologies such as artificial intelligence.
(2)
Breakthroughs in these fields have the potential to reshape the global balance of power, spark entirely new industries, and revolutionize the way Americans live and work.
(3)
Global competitors are racing to develop and deploy these technologies to gain strategic advantage.
(4)
Securing that future requires harnessing the full power of American innovation across the private sector, academia, and government.
(5)
The United States leads the world in AI due to a thriving innovation, investment, and development environment; and a flexible, sector-specific regulatory framework.
(6)
A patchwork of divergent State AI rules creates conflicting requirements, forces firms to navigate multiple agencies, and can deter investment.
(7)
Small businesses face disproportionate compliance burdens from unclear or fragmented AI rules; clarity and sector-specific guidance are needed.
(8)
There is no universal legal definition of “artificial intelligence”; any Federal action that preempts State AI laws should precisely define its scope.
(9)
AI governance standards are still maturing (including the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s AI Risk Management Framework); a uniform national approach during this build-out supports responsible adoption.
4.

Policy
It is the policy of the United States that—
(1)
Sustaining and enhancing America’s global AI dominance is necessary to promote human flourishing and economic competitiveness.
(2)
It is a national security imperative for the United States to achieve and maintain unquestioned and unchallenged global technological dominance.
(3)
Federal AI governance should affirm a sectoral, technology-neutral, incremental approach that leverages primary regulators’ expertise.
(4)
A permissive national framework should enable the development of AI models and systems in interstate commerce for a defined period to prevent state-by-state regulatory uncertainty while national guardrails are developed.
(5)
Federal policy should anchor AI risk management in nationally recognized principles and guidance to promote consistent, predictable compliance.
(6)
Regulations should minimize disproportionate burdens on small businesses and support their ability to adopt AI tools and compete.
(7)
Federal preemption of State AI laws should use precise definitions, be time limited and be clear in scope to avoid ambiguity and unnecessary litigation.
5.

National artificial intelligence action plan
(a)

Action plan required
Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the President, acting through the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (or the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy), the Special Advisor for Artificial Intelligence and Crypto (or such official as the President may designate with substantially similar responsibilities), and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Director), and the heads of such executive departments and agencies as appropriate, shall develop and submit to Congress a National Artificial Intelligence Action Plan (in this section, the “Action Plan”) to carry out the policy in section 4.
(b)

Annual updates
Not later than 1 year after the submission required by subsection (a), and annually thereafter, the President shall submit to Congress an update on implementation of, and any revisions to, the Action Plan.
(c)

Contents of the action plan
The Action Plan shall, at a minimum—
(1)
identify actions to remove barriers to American AI innovation across the Federal Government, and at the State and local level, including procurement, licensing, permitting, routing, zoning, and reporting processes;
(2)
set measurable goals, timelines, and agency roles for advancing AI research and development; testing, evaluation, verification, and validation; and adoption of safe, secure, and trustworthy AI in Federal missions;
(3)
align Federal risk management and governance with nationally recognized standards and guidance, including frameworks and profiles developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and identify any additional standards work needed;
(4)
outline steps to strengthen critical-infrastructure security, national-security applications, supply-chain resilience, and incident reporting relevant to AI;
(5)
include measures to reduce disproportionate compliance burdens on small businesses and expand access to foundation models, computing resources, datasets, and technical assistance; and
(6)
set metrics to evaluate progress and a cadence for interagency coordination and public reporting.
(d)

Review of executive actions; conformity
As part of the Action Plan, the officials identified in subsection (a), in coordination with the heads of relevant agencies—
(1)
shall review all policies, directives, regulations, orders, guidance, and other actions taken pursuant to Executive Order 14110 of October 30, 2023 (Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence), and provide a status update on actions taken pursuant to Executive Order 14179 of January 23, 2025 (Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence); and identify any such actions under either Executive Order that are or may be inconsistent with the policy in section 4; and,
(2)
for any action identified under paragraph (1), the head of the relevant agency shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, suspend, revise, or rescind such action, or propose doing so. If immediate final action is not possible, the agency shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide available exemptions until such action can be finalized.
(e)

Review of conflicting state law; recommendation on preemption scope and duration
The Action Plan shall—
(1)
identify State and local laws, regulations, or policies that conflict with, or unduly burden, the achievement of the policy in section 4 or implementation of the Action Plan; and,
(2)
provide recommendations to Congress on whether to adjust the scope or length of the State-law preemption in section 6, including options such as extension of the five-year moratorium, clarifications to covered systems or activities, safe harbors, or other refinements, with a statement of rationale.
(f)

Submission; committees
Each submission required under this section shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate and, at a minimum, to the Committees on Energy and Commerce; Judiciary; Education and the Workforce; Science, Space, and Technology; and Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives; and to the Committees on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; Judiciary; Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate.
6.

State law preemption; temporary moratorium
(a)

Moratorium
(1)

In general
Except as provided in paragraph (2), no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce, during the 5-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, any law or regulation of that State or a political subdivision thereof limiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems entered into interstate commerce.
(2)

Rule of construction
Paragraph (1) may not be construed to prohibit the enforcement of—
(A)
any law or regulation that—
(i)
the primary purpose and effect of which is to—
(I)
remove legal impediments to, or facilitate the deployment or operation of, an artificial intelligence model, artificial intelligence system, or automated decision system; or
(II)
streamline licensing, permitting, routing, zoning, procurement, or reporting procedures in a manner that facilitates the adoption of artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems;
(ii)
does not impose any substantive design, performance, data-handling, documentation, civil liability, taxation, fee, or other requirement on artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems unless such requirement—
(I)
is imposed under Federal law; or
(II)
in the case of a requirement imposed under a generally applicable law, is imposed in the same manner on models and systems, other than artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, and automated decision systems, that provide comparable functions to artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems; and
(iii)
does not impose a fee or bond unless—
(I)
such fee or bond is reasonable and cost-based; and
(II)
under such fee or bond, artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, and automated decision systems are treated in the same manner as other models and systems that perform comparable functions; or
(B)
any provision of a law or regulation to the extent that the violation of such provision carries a criminal penalty.
(b)

No preemption of generally applicable criminal law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt generally applicable criminal laws of a State or political subdivision thereof.
(c)

No effect on contracting by the state
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit a State or political subdivision from setting performance, security, or other requirements for its own procurement or use of artificial intelligence systems, provided such requirements do not operate as de facto regulations of private parties beyond the government’s role as a market participant.
7.

General rule of construction
Except as expressly provided in section 6 (State-law preemption), nothing in this Act shall be construed—
(1)
to authorize any Federal agency to impose substantive design, performance, data-handling, documentation, or civil-liability requirements on artificial intelligence models or systems beyond authority otherwise provided by law; or
(2)
to limit the enforcement of generally applicable, technology-neutral criminal laws or other authorities otherwise provided by law.