Trump AI Order Creates Uncertainty for NY Raise Act, Lawyers Say
The fate of a New York AI bill signed last week by Gov. Kathy Hocul (D) is unclear due to federal attempts to combat state AI regulation, Davis Wright attorneys blogged Tuesday.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Hochul signed the New York Responsible AI Safety and Education (Raise) Act (S-6953) on Dec. 19 (see 2512220061). It requires “large AI developers to create and publish information about their safety protocols and report incidents to the state within 72 hours,” according to her office.
“The Act's passage highlights the burgeoning conflict between state and federal AI regulation,” coming after President Donald Trump issued an executive order meant to combat state AI regulation (see 2512120042),” wrote the law firm’s Wendy Kearns, Apurva Dharia and Andrew Lewis. “This is the first state law to be signed” since Trump’s EO, “which suggests several avenues for attacking laws like the RAISE Act, including tasking the [FTC] to challenge state laws as interfering with interstate commerce, preempted by federal regulation, and violating the First Amendment and other constitutional provisions.”
So, while New York’s law marks “a significant expansion of state power over AI … its long-term viability is uncertain,” the lawyers said. “Clients should prepare for a period of prolonged regulatory ambiguity, characterized by multi-front litigation, potential fines, and the prospect that withholding federal funding may be used as leverage against states that adopt or enforce their AI regulations.”
Hochul and the New York bill sponsors negotiated changes to make the Raise Act look more like California’s AI law (SB-53), said the Davis Wright lawyers: However, “critical differences remain -- particularly regarding reporting speed and definitions of ‘harm,’” they added. For example, New York refers to critical harm as amounting to at least 100 deaths or $1 billion in damages, while California refers to catastrophic risk as at least 50 deaths or $1 billion in damages, noted the blog.