For months, Huge Tech has insisted that any critical AI regulation should come from Washington—and solely Washington. Besides it by no means got here till this week.
That drumbeat didn’t begin with the Trump draft government order or the NDAA back-room moratorium. It started lengthy earlier than, in venture-capital coverage retailers like Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), the place a really particular technique was laid out to strip states of their potential to manage AI, invoke the Commerce Clause to dam something native or democratic, and change public oversight with a successfully non-existent federal framework formed by the {industry} itself.
In early 2025, the Marc Andreessen enterprise capital store known as “a16z” launched two unusually detailed coverage papers arguing that america should undertake a “uniform nationwide AI technique” and that state AI legal guidelines had been unconstitutional boundaries to innovation. The papers didn’t simply make philosophical claims—they mapped out a litigation playbook, urging the Division of Justice to sue states below the
Dormant Commerce Clause and pushing Congress to preempt all the pieces from privateness guidelines to algorithmic accountability legal guidelines. They even sketched the institutional construction for a federal advisory physique dominated by {industry} actors.
When the draft government order surfaced this week, observers seen one thing uncanny: the construction, arguments, and authorized cadence echoed the a16z papers virtually point-for-point. Besides the EO wasn’t posted on a VC web site—it was supposed to be caught into the Nationwide Protection Authorization Act which is the laws that basically authorizes the protection of america. That’s proper…the NDAA is Congress’s annual protection coverage invoice, setting navy priorities, authorizing packages, shaping Pentagon technique, and directing billions in spending. It usually turns into a automobile for unrelated amendments—typically quietly favoring massive contractors or tech pursuits—making vigilance important to stop hidden giveaways or coverage riders that bypass regular scrutiny.
The EO claimed that state AI legal guidelines obstructed interstate commerce. It directed DOJ to launch an “AI Litigation Process Pressure” to knock out state rules. It established an industry-heavy federal council. And it tried—by way of government fiat—to impose a sweeping, decade-long moratorium on state AI rulemaking.
The NDAA moratorium modification is just the legislative model of the identical blueprint.
To know simply how intently the EO mirrors a16z’s imaginative and prescient, it helps to see the 2 side-by-side. The comparability isn’t delicate—it’s structural.
Comparability Chart: a16z AI Coverage Papers vs. AI Moratorium EO
| Coverage Problem | a16z AI Coverage Papers (2025) | Draft AI Moratorium / EO | Alignment between a16z and EO |
| Core Goal | Opposes 50-state patchwork; requires nationwide uniformity. | Declares state AI legal guidelines invalid; imposes 10-year moratorium. | Excessive |
| Constitutional Principle | Makes use of the Dormant Commerce Clause to dam state AI legal guidelines. | DOJ instructed to sue states below Commerce Clause concept. | Excessive |
| Federal Preemption Technique | Pushes Congress for broad preemption with out heavy regulation. | EO makes use of government energy to preempt state legal guidelines; NDAA model codifies it. | Excessive |
| Position of DOJ | Recommends DOJ litigation towards restrictive states. | Creates AI Litigation Process Pressure to sue states. | Excessive |
| View of State Legal guidelines | Frames state legal guidelines as boundaries to innovation. | Labels state legal guidelines unconstitutional obstacles to nationwide AI technique. | Excessive |
| Federalism Body | Argues AI is inherently interstate/world, requiring federal area. | EO claims unique federal authority over AI’s financial and strategic area. | Excessive |
| Trade Enter | Promotes heavy reliance on {industry} experience. | Creates a federal AI {industry} council dominated by labs and traders. | Reasonable–Excessive |
| Regulatory Burden | Favors “light-touch” (or extra “untouchable”) innovation-first federal coverage. | Blocks all state regulation for 10 years. | Excessive |
| Market Construction Implications | Endorses consolidation and speedy scaling as strategic necessity. | EO frames consolidation as national-security crucial. | Excessive |
The Blueprint Was By no means About Security — It Was About Energy
If you peel again the authorized rhetoric and the Commerce Clause kabuki theater, the sample turns into unmistakable. The AI moratorium isn’t a considerate nationwide technique, it isn’t a negotiated invoice that Individuals had an opportunity to debate, and it rattling positive isn’t a response to rising dangers. It’s the achievement of a playbook drafted by the very traders who stand to revenue most if states are stripped of their potential to guard their very own residents.
A16z didn’t disguise its intentions. It instructed us plainly: eradicate state authority, centralize energy in Washington, let {industry} form the foundations, and deal with federal preemption as a aggressive moat. The draft government order and NDAA moratorium comply with that script line-for-line — identical concept, identical language, identical beneficiaries.
And that’s the true hazard.
As soon as you exchange a venture-capital white paper into federal doctrine, you’re not governing within the public curiosity. You’re governing within the curiosity of the individuals who funded the white paper.
If Congress blesses this corruption whether or not via the NDAA or an uncontested government order it can lock in a future the place:
- AI firms function with out state oversight
- Native protections for privateness, civil rights, and client security are frozen
- “Nationwide technique” turns into a euphemism for {industry} seize
- And the U.S. authorities turns into the enforcement arm for the biggest, wealthiest AI companies ever assembled
America didn’t construct the web by silencing the states. However over time, Congress let a handful of industries persuade Washington that immunity and preemption had been the value of innovation. That discount produced three sweeping protected harbors — Part 230, the DMCA, and the Music Modernization Act — every offered as non permanent, obligatory guardrails to assist younger industries develop.
As an alternative, every one grew to become a lesson in how briskly a “startup safety” turns into a protect for company abuse.
Part 230 was meant to assist early on-line platforms reasonable in good religion. As an alternative, it created an unaccountable ecosystem the place firms revenue from amplification however disclaim duty for the harms created downstream. States, cities, and even victims had been instructed to face down as a result of federal legislation had spoken.
The DMCA was imagined to be a balanced framework for digital creativity. It grew to become the authorized structure of mass-scale infringement — a notice-and-takedown machine that overwhelmed creators, hollowed out enforcement, and gave platforms near-total immunity so long as they pretended to not see the theft occurring in plain sight.
The MMA promised equity for songwriters. As an alternative, its protected harbor for the MLC institutionalized information failure, underpayment, and a quasi-governmental monopoly shielded from significant state oversight — a reminder that federally blessed immunity not often aligns with public accountability.
We all know the place these paths lead: company seize, regulatory paralysis, and many years of cleanup.
So when the identical playbook reappears — this time for AI — wrapped in a shakey Commerce Clause fig leaf and drafted by enterprise capitalists searching for federal preemption over all state legal guidelines, we should always acknowledge the sample instantly.
America didn’t construct aerospace, biotechnology, power, or telecom by letting one {industry} veto democratically enacted safeguards. And it shouldn’t construct AI that method both.
Not once more. Not after what we’ve already discovered.The moratorium isn’t innovation coverage.
It’s an influence seize — wearing constitutional language, engineered by traders, and smuggled into the nationwide protection invoice.
Congress ought to reject it.
States ought to resist it.
And the general public ought to perceive precisely whose blueprint this actually is.
