A push in Congress to block states from regulating artificial intelligence has drawn sharp pushback from Massachusetts, where state officials warn that federal preemption legislation could strip workers of protections against AI-driven discrimination in hiring and employment.
Why It Matters
Employers across the country are increasingly using AI tools to screen job applications, track employee productivity, adjust pay, and in some cases terminate workers. Without state or federal guardrails, critics argue workers have little recourse when automated systems produce discriminatory outcomes.
Massachusetts has already moved on several fronts to address AI-related harms. Attorney General Andrea Campbell issued guidance in 2024 requiring AI developers, sellers, and users to comply with the state’s consumer protection, anti-discrimination, and data privacy laws. The Massachusetts House has also passed legislation targeting AI-generated political ads and deceptive election communications.
What Happened
U.S. Representative Lori Trahan, a Massachusetts Democrat, has backed a federal bill that would prevent states from enacting their own AI regulations — a policy known as federal preemption. The proposal has alarmed state officials who believe Massachusetts and other states should retain authority to address emerging AI harms as the technology evolves.
State Senator Michael Moore and State Representative Tricia Farley-Bouvier wrote to Trahan directly, warning her against supporting such legislation. Moore argued that states have historically served as testing grounds for new policy approaches. “States are where a lot of the real policy innovation happens first,” he said.
The concern is not abstract. Research into AI hiring tools has documented patterns of racial bias that could go unchecked if states lose the authority to act independently of Congress.
By the Numbers
A study examining more than 4 million job applications across 11 business sectors found troubling disparities in how AI screening tools evaluate candidates. One hiring tool was found to discriminate against Black applicants 25 percent of the time and against Asian applicants 15 percent of the time.
A separate analysis of 120 first names — categorized by their association with white and Black men and women — found that large language models ranked white-associated names higher 85 percent of the time, compared to just 9 percent of the time for Black-associated names.
These figures underscore the real-world consequences of AI-driven employment decisions and have bolstered the case for state-level oversight while federal legislation remains unsettled. Massachusetts lawmakers pressing Congress on this issue have pointed to such data as evidence that the technology poses documented risks that cannot wait for a slow-moving federal process.
Zoom Out
Massachusetts is not alone. States across the country are advancing measures targeting AI-enabled discrimination, children’s online safety, deepfakes, and other harms associated with rapidly expanding AI deployment. The patchwork of state efforts reflects both the pace of technological change and the absence of comprehensive federal AI legislation.
Supporters of federal preemption argue that a uniform national standard would reduce compliance burdens for companies operating across multiple states. Opponents counter that locking in federal authority now — before Congress has enacted meaningful protections — would effectively leave workers and consumers exposed while the legislative process catches up.
The debate mirrors earlier fights over data privacy, where states like California moved aggressively in the absence of federal action, eventually pressuring Congress to consider national standards. A Massachusetts lawmaker has separately pressed Congress to establish a federal AI framework that complements rather than displaces state authority.
What’s Next
The federal preemption bill’s prospects in Congress remain uncertain, but pressure from state officials is growing as more legislatures advance AI-related measures. In Massachusetts, the outcome of the state House’s AI legislation and the attorney general’s enforcement posture under existing law will likely shape how the state positions itself in the broader federal debate.
State lawmakers are expected to continue pressing the Massachusetts congressional delegation to oppose preemption provisions in any federal AI package, while pushing for federal standards that set a floor — not a ceiling — on state protections for workers and consumers.