Blog

The Senate removed the AI moratorium provision from the reconciliation bill in a 99–1 vote early Tuesday morning. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R–Tenn.) and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D–Wash.) co-sponsored the amendment to eliminate the provision after Blackburn reneged on a compromise with Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) to amend it over the weekend.

The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee released the text of its original AI moratorium provisionon June 5. This earlier version imposed a 10-year period during which $500 million of newly appropriated Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) funding for “the construction and deployment of infrastructure for the provision of artificial intelligence models” could be withheld from states found “limiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating artificial intelligence models” by the commerce secretary. Last week, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that the moratorium satisfied the Byrd rule, which allows only budget issues to be considered in reconciliation text, after the committee specified that it would not condition all $42 billion of BEAD funding appropriated in the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law on the nonenforcement of state-level AI laws. Still, intraconservative debates about the AI moratorium continued.

The amended AI moratorium, agreed to by Blackburn over the weekend, conditioned the disbursement of the $500 million BEAD funding to states on their nonenforcement of “any law or regulation…regulating artificial intelligence models” for five years. States would still be allowed to enforce “generally applicable” laws, like those “pertaining to unfair or deceptive acts or practices, child online safety, child sexual abuse material, rights of publicity, [and] protection of a person’s name, image, voice, or likeness [that] may address, without undue or disproportionate burden, artificial intelligence.”

The Institute for Law and AI warned that the compromise’s “undue or disproportionate burden” language would “generate additional litigation [and] uncertainty” while failing to shield those laws Blackburn sought to protect. Neil Chilson, head of AI policy for the Abundance Institute, disagreed and argued that an expanded “generally applicable law” exemption would have made it more likely that those laws Blackburn sought to shield would have been protected.

Despite signaling support for the provision’s revised language on Sunday, Blackburn backed out late Monday night. Blackburn said, “This provision could allow Big Tech to continue to exploit kids, creators, and conservatives,” The New York Times reports.

Fairplay, the leading nonprofit committed to helping children thrive in our screen-obsessed culture, congratulates Vermont on becoming the first state in the nation to prohibit schools from contacting students through social media.

The ban comes from a bill that was led by State Rep. Angela Arsenault, who is a member of Fairplay’s Screen Time Action Network Screens in Schools Work Group. The legislation will also add Vermont to the growing number of states that have passed “bell-to-bell” policies that ban the use of phones and personal electronic devices during the school day. Gov. Phil Scott signed the bill into law today.

In 2022, Fairplay, in conjunction with the grassroots members of its Screen Time Action Network Screens in Schools Work Group, wrote and organized a letter signed by over 20 organizations and nearly 30 experts calling on the U.S. Department of Education to issue official guidance against the use of social media to communicate with students.

Fairplay Executive Director Josh Golin, a Vermont resident, said: “I’m proud to see our state take the lead in ending the absurd practice of forcing students to use social media in order to participate in extracurriculars or communicate with educators and administrators. Social media use is linked to mental health struggles and other serious harms for minors, and no child should ever be compelled to use TikTok, Snap, or Instagram in order to participate in school activities. And by requiring schools to have a ‘bell-to-bell’ policy prohibiting phone use, Vermont lawmakers have taken a critical step toward improving the well-being and learning of our state’s students.

“The passage of this first-of-its-kind legislation is a testament to the tireless organizing of the all-volunteer Vermont Coalition for Phone and Social Media Free Schools and the leadership of Rep. Angela Arsenault. Between this and the recently enacted Vermont Kids Code, Vermont is now the clear national leader in protecting children from the dangers of phones and social media.”

Vermont State Rep. Angela Arsenault, the lead sponsor of the bill and a member of Fairplay’s Screen Time Action Network Screens in Schools Work Group, said: “I’m grateful to our House and Senate Education Committees, and especially thankful for the tireless efforts of the Vermont Coalition for Phone- and Social Media-Free Schools. This group of wise, caring, motivated, mostly moms pushed this legislation forward in ways that perhaps nobody else could.

“With the passage of our bill, the school day will soon provide all Vermont kids with a respite from the pressures and harms that are now ever-present in their lives thanks to social media and other online products. The prohibition on schools using social media to communicate directly with students signals our understanding that these products are not safe for kids, and therefore schools should not direct students to use them. It’s as simple as that.”

Laura Derrendinger, one of the lead campaigners for Vermont’s phone-free schools bill and a member of the Screens in Schools working group of Fairplay’s Screen Time Action Network, said: “Now that schools cannot ask or require students to use social media through high school, this aligns with best practice informed by the independent research. This supports families. This also sends a strong public health message. These products are unsafe at any age.”

The Supreme Court of the United States on Friday upheld a Texas law requiring pornography websites to verify visitors’ ages to protect minors from sexually explicit content online.

Justices ruled 6-3 that requiring adults in Texas to verify their age does not violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, noting at least 21 other states imposed similar regulations on sexual material that could be harmful to minors online.

Texas and other states prohibit the distribution of sexually explicit content to children in brick and mortar stores, but online content remains largely unregulated.

Read more here. 

Listen here

Take Action Here

For 20 years, Sean “Diddy” Combs, the once larger-than-life rap producer and multimillionaire, considered himself untouchable — hiding behind the veil of his celebrity while leading a criminal syndicate that enabled him to control and sexually brutalize women, a federal prosecutor told Manhattan jurors Thursday in closing arguments.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Christine Slavik said evidence presented over more than seven weeks had proven that in the decades before his September 2024 arrest, Combs wielded his industry status and his massive wealth to behave like a mob boss, employing a network of henchmen who shamed and instilled fear in his victims and those who threatened his powerthrough violence and other intimidation tactics.

“The enterprise’s purpose was to protect its leader,” Slavik said.

The prosecutor said there was no doubt from trial testimony that high-ranking members of Combs’ Bad Boy Records empire, like his bodyguards and various assistants, habitually committed crimes like kidnapping, arson, drug distribution, sex trafficking, bribery, transportation to engage in prostitution, forced labor and obstruction and witness tampering to make sure his every desire was met. To find Combs guilty of racketeering conspiracy, Slavik said jurors only needed to determine one of those crimes was committed by the enterprise on at least two occasions, and that evidence relating to drug distribution alone had yielded “hundreds” of examples.

Read more here. 

1. What is the proposed federal AI moratorium?

Contained within H.R. 1 (the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”) is a provision seeking to prevent any state or its political subdivisions (e.g., cities or counties) from enforcing any law or regulation that specifically targets AI models, AI systems, or automated decision systems.^[1] The prohibition would last for a 10-year period starting from the enactment date.

2. What is federal preemption, and how would it apply if the moratorium were enacted?

Rooted in the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, federal preemption allows federal law to supersede state law when they conflict or when Congress intends to occupy a regulatory field exclusively. Because its language explicitly prohibits states from enforcing certain laws, the AI moratorium—if enacted—would be an act of express preemption. This means that validly enacted federal law would prevent states from making or enforcing their own AI-specific regulations for a 10-year period (unless an exception applies).

3. What is the stated or implied purpose of this 10-year moratorium?

While the draft language itself does not explicitly state its overarching purpose, proponents argue that such measures are intended to foster national uniformity in regulation. Preventing a “patchwork” of differing state laws would reduce compliance burdens for businesses operating across state lines and could potentially encourage innovation. More than 1,000 AI-related bills were introduced in the United States within the first five months of 2025—the vast majority of them state bills.

Read more here.

Congress is considering a moratorium on state artificial intelligence (AI) regulation. This FAQ answers some basic questions about the proposal and will be updated occasionally to reflect breaking developments.

1. What is the proposed federal AI moratorium?

Contained within H.R. 1 (the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”) is a provision seeking to prevent any state or its political subdivisions (e.g., cities or counties) from enforcing any law or regulation that specifically targets AI models, AI systems, or automated decision systems.^[1] The prohibition would last for a 10-year period starting from the enactment date.

2. What is federal preemption, and how would it apply if the moratorium were enacted?

Rooted in the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, federal preemption allows federal law to supersede state law when they conflict or when Congress intends to occupy a regulatory field exclusively. Because its language explicitly prohibits states from enforcing certain laws, the AI moratorium—if enacted—would be an act of express preemption. This means that validly enacted federal law would prevent states from making or enforcing their own AI-specific regulations for a 10-year period (unless an exception applies).

3. What is the stated or implied purpose of this 10-year moratorium?

While the draft language itself does not explicitly state its overarching purpose, proponents argue that such measures are intended to foster national uniformity in regulation. Preventing a “patchwork” of differing state laws would reduce compliance burdens for businesses operating across state lines and could potentially encourage innovation. More than 1,000 AI-related bills were introduced in the United States within the first five months of 2025—the vast majority of them state bills.

Read more here. 

U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) introduced a bipartisan resolution to commemorate Social Media Harms Victim Remembrance Day on June 23, 2024. Social Media Harms Victim Remembrance Day is observed annually to reflect on the need to create safe digital spaces for young people.

“Big tech companies have repeatedly shown an inability to safeguard children’s data, ensure online safety, and prevent illicit fentanyl trafficking on their platforms,” said Klobuchar. “We must work together to address these longstanding issues and remember those we have lost.”

“While the internet has had many great benefits for communication, health care, and education, social media’s dark and addictive rabbit holes have harmed too many young people,” said Blackburn. “By designating June 23rd as ‘Social Media Harms Victim Remembrance Day,’ the Senate honors the young people who have lost their lives and have suffered harms on social media platforms.”

Read more here.