Trump wants to block states from regulating AI, but this Utah Republican couldn’t care less
AI regulation has become one of the hottest topics in American politics in 2026, and the debate is far from simple.
On one side, the Trump administration is pushing for a single national standard, arguing that too many state-level rules could stall American innovation in the tech race against China. On the other, state lawmakers — many of them with backgrounds at the very big tech companies in question — say waiting around for Congress is a luxury the public simply can’t afford.
Enter Doug Fiefia, a Utah state representative, former Google employee, and candidate for the state Senate with a clear mission: put the brakes on AI before the problems land on everyone’s doorstep. The detail that makes this story even more interesting? He’s a Republican. And he’s going head-to-head against the position of his own party’s president 👀.
This rift within the Republican Party, combined with the tech industry’s billion-dollar lobbying machine and growing public pressure, shows that AI regulation is no longer just a topic for specialists or digital activists. It’s real politics, with real consequences, affecting everyone from kids using chatbots to workers trying to blow the whistle on shady corporate practices. And what happens in the United States on this front, as we’ve seen so many times before, tends to ripple across the entire globe 🌎.
What Trump wants with AI and why the states aren’t buying it
The Trump administration’s stance on artificial intelligence is pretty straightforward: less federal regulation, zero state regulation, and maximum speed so American companies can dominate the sector before China gets there first. The president issued an executive order that includes legal threats and funding penalties to discourage new state regulations, sending a clear signal that the White House’s priority was to clear the road for innovation — even if that meant leaving important questions unanswered for now.
The government’s logic is that a patchwork of different state laws would create an impossible environment for tech companies to operate in. Imagine an AI company having to adapt its product to 50 different sets of rules, each with its own requirements, deadlines, and penalties. From the federal government’s perspective, that would be shooting the American industry in the foot at a time when the competition with China for tech dominance is fiercer than ever.
The White House recently released a framework for potential congressional legislation that would override state laws deemed overly burdensome, although it does allow for some rules focused on protecting children and copyrights. The problem is that the U.S. Congress hasn’t shown any signs of resolving this anytime soon. Negotiations are slow, there are too many competing interests, and big tech lobbying runs into the millions.
Meanwhile, artificial intelligence systems keep getting deployed in schools, hospitals, courtrooms, and job platforms without any clear oversight. About 8 in 10 Americans say they’re concerned or very concerned about AI, according to a Quinnipiac poll from last month. Roughly three-quarters of respondents think the government isn’t doing enough to regulate the technology. And perhaps most telling: about 9 in 10 Democrats and 6 in 10 Republicans want more government involvement on the issue. It’s exactly this delay — combined with that popular pressure — that’s fueling the movement at the state level.
Doug Fiefia: from Google to Utah politics
Doug Fiefia isn’t the typical profile you’d expect to find on the front lines of AI regulation. A Republican and the son of Tongan immigrants, he grew up in Utah but moved to Silicon Valley, where he worked as a salesman at Google. Over time, he climbed the ranks and ended up managing a team that worked directly on deploying Google’s early AI models with partner companies.
Receive the best innovation content in your email.
All the news, tips, trends, and resources you're looking for, delivered to your inbox.
By subscribing to the newsletter, you agree to receive communications from Método Viral. We are committed to always protecting and respecting your privacy.
What he saw from the inside changed how he viewed the industry. In an interview with the Associated Press, Fiefia left no doubt about what drove him to switch careers:
What I realized is that big tech cares about the bottom line. They were worried about making money, not about doing what’s right for the human race.
Fiefia returned to Utah, took a job at a local cloud computing and AI company, and launched himself into state politics. Elected as a state representative, he made AI regulation the centerpiece of his legislative work. Now, he’s running for the state Senate on that same platform.
When he met with about a dozen Republican activists in the backyard of a home in suburban Salt Lake City to talk about this year’s elections, the conversation touched on the usual Utah conservative talking points — water supply, immigration fraud, and conspiracy theories about chemtrails. But Fiefia wanted to start with a different topic.
I know it seems like that’s all I talk about, he told the group. But that’s because it’s coming, it’s already here, and it’s going to be our biggest fight.
A bill blocked by the White House
Fiefia’s bill focused on child safety protocols for AI companies, whistleblower protections for tech workers, and public disclosure of risks associated with artificial intelligence systems. The proposal passed unanimously through a Utah House committee, showing there was genuine bipartisan support for the initiative.
But the story took a sharp turn. The Trump administration sent a letter to the Utah state Senate declaring the measure irreparable. The proposal was shelved shortly after.
Daniel McCay, the state senator that Fiefia is challenging in the Republican primary, defended killing the bill. According to McCay, the measure went far beyond child safety by including whistleblower protections and public disclosure requirements, and that would have driven Utah out of the AI innovation market.
I’ve been around long enough to recognize that the invention of fire, the wheel, cars, and the internet didn’t destroy society. I’m very skeptical of anyone who tries to scare society into passing regulations, McCay said in an interview.
Fiefia, for his part, didn’t back down. When asked about challenging the Trump administration, he said it’s especially important to stand up for states’ rights when a fellow Republican is in power, precisely to show that the principles involved are genuine.
The Trump administration wants zero regulations on AI. I think that’s wrong. I agree with a lot of what Trump says about taxes. I disagree with him on this.
A network of former tech workers turned politicians
Fiefia isn’t alone in this fight. He’s part of an informal network of former tech employees who became state legislators and are now trying to meet the demand for stronger regulations. He co-chairs the AI task force of the Future Caucus, a network of younger state lawmakers, alongside Monique Priestley, a Vermont Democrat who also has a background in the tech sector.
The group uses video calls and group chats to share ideas for new bills and deal with the lobbyists who oppose their proposals. Priestley shared that 166 of the 482 registered lobbyists in Vermont weighed in on her data privacy bill last year — which ended up being vetoed by the governor.
It’s like you’re running against an army of full-time lobbyists, said Priestley, who, like many state legislators, works another full-time job.
Another member of the task force is Alex Bores, a former data scientist at Palantir who quit after the company struck a deal to help the first Trump administration with immigration enforcement. A Democrat, Bores authored the New York bill that requires major AI developers to report dangerous incidents to the state — which was signed into law last year.
Now Bores is running in the competitive Democratic primary to replace retiring U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler, and he’s facing direct retaliation from the industry. A pro-AI committee has already spent 2.3 million dollars against his candidacy. Bores believes tech companies are trying to make an example of him to intimidate any other legislator who might think about regulating the sector.
One of the reasons it’s so important for me to win this race is that if I don’t win, the intimidation they’re trying in Congress is going to work, Bores said. Among his opponents in the June 23 primary are Jack Schlossberg, grandson of former President John F. Kennedy, and George Conway, a former Republican who became one of Trump’s most vocal critics on social media.
More than 1,000 state proposals show just how big this issue is
The numbers make it clear that anxiety over AI isn’t isolated to Utah. Right now, there are more than 1,000 state legislative proposals on artificial intelligence making their way through statehouses across the country. The most popular ideas include requiring chatbots to remind users they’re not human and banning the use of AI to generate non-consensual pornography, including manipulating photos to remove or replace clothing.
In Florida, Republican Governor Ron DeSantis added the AI issue to a special legislative session. He pushed for a bill that would implement parental controls for minors using AI and ban systems from using anyone’s likeness without permission. The bill passed overwhelmingly in the state Senate but stalled in the House. In Republican-led states like Louisiana and Missouri, AI bills have also hit roadblocks because of pushback from the Trump administration.
The most significant regulations so far have come out of California and New York, both Democrat-controlled states. These measures focus on disclosing catastrophic risks, such as the scenario of an AI system causing nuclear power plant failures or AI models refusing to follow human directives.
Craig Albright, senior vice president of government relations at the Business Software Alliance, which represents software companies, summed up the landscape well: There are a lot of state lawmakers looking at what the federal government is doing and saying they want to act because they’re not satisfied.
Why this debate matters far beyond the U.S.
What’s happening in the United States with AI regulation matters to the entire world, and not just because the country is home to the biggest AI companies on the planet. It matters because the standards the U.S. adopts — or fails to adopt — will directly influence how other countries approach the issue. The European Union has already taken its own steps with the AI Act, but the practical impact of that regulation depends partly on what American companies decide to do when operating globally. If the U.S. market doesn’t demand transparency, companies have no financial incentive to offer it in other markets either.
Beyond that, the state-level policy model that Fiefia and other lawmakers are trying to build in the U.S. could serve as a reference for countries also facing the dilemma of regulating without stifling innovation. Utah isn’t just any testing ground — it’s a state that has been attracting more and more tech companies precisely because of its business-friendly stance, which makes any regulatory initiative coming from there all the more significant. If a pro-business, conservative state is saying AI needs rules, that sends a different signal than if the same message were coming from California, for instance.
And then there’s the question of everyday people, who are often left out of this technical debate but are the ones most affected by the decisions that come out of it. Kids interacting with chatbots without proper supervision, workers whose job applications are filtered by opaque algorithms, patients whose diagnoses are influenced by systems nobody has audited — these are the real cases Fiefia cites when defending his proposals. And these are the cases that show why the discussion around AI regulation needs to move beyond committee rooms and reach the people who will actually live with the consequences of these political choices 🤝.
Brett Young, a structural engineer who attended the backyard gathering with Fiefia in Riverton, expressed a feeling that probably reflects what millions of Americans are thinking right now: None of us are sure. Is this something we should be afraid of, or is it not that big a deal and it’s going to make our lives better?
The clash between Trump and lawmakers like Doug Fiefia represents a pivotal moment for the future of artificial intelligence in the United States — and, by extension, for the rest of the world. On one side, the push for speed and global competitiveness. On the other, the demand for accountability and real protection for people. The outcome of this showdown will shape not only American laws but the global standard for how humanity decides to govern one of the most powerful technologies it has ever created.
