In the United States, regulatory oversight of artificial intelligence remains minimal. The landscape is complex, shaped by a mix of fragmented governance and the strong influence of major technology companies, which often work to steer and shape emerging rules. This dynamic is sometimes described as the “anti-Brussels” effect. While the European Commission advances a robust, risk-based regulatory framework for AI, the U.S. is moving in a different direction. It is prioritizing industry flexibility and federal restraint over a strict, harmonized regulatory regime.
At the federal level, the U.S. still lacks a comprehensive AI law. The newly announced US AI Action Plan , published in the summer of 2025, was written in the spirit of permisionless innovation. Permissionless innovation is a policy and economic concept that avoids preemptive, restrictive regulation that could slow innovation and growth. It means that individuals and companies alike can develop and deploy new technologies without having to seek prior approval from regulators or central authorities. It encourages open experimentation and emphasizes speed of AI system deployment within startup, commercial enterprise and government sector markets. Additionally, it promotes private-private collaboration and innovation ecosystems instead of top-down control.
In this vacuum of AI regulation at a national level, some states have moved ahead with AI-specific laws such as California, Colorado, Utah and Illinois, but the national picture remains fragmented and incomplete.
Efforts by Capitol Hill to assert federal primacy have raised red flags. In mid-2025, the U.S. House passed a reconciliation package including a provision that would have prohibited states from enforcing any AI-related law or regulation for the next ten years. Although the Senate ultimately struck the 10-year moratorium by a 99-1 vote, the very fact such a measure was on the table signals how regulators, industry and legislators are wrestling with how to regulate AI in the United States.
While federal regulation remains light, states are stepping in but they are few and far in-between. The potential for pre-emptive federal legislation or no regulation looms large for the foreseeable future. The consequences? A patchwork of rules, regulatory uncertainty for companies, and significant influence by private actors especially the enterprises who own the world’s largest LLM frontier models.
One of the less publicized but increasingly influential features of this landscape is how major tech firms are deploying campaign and lobbying resources to shape not just how AI might be regulated but whether it is regulated at all.
In September 2025, Meta Platforms (the parent company of Facebook/Instagram) launched a new Super PAC called American Technology Excellence Project with tens of millions of dollars earmarked to support tech-friendly candidates in state elections and oppose emerging state AI regulation. They aren’t alone. In August 2025, venture capitalist firm a16z (Andreessen Horowitz) and OpenAI president Greg Brockman announced they were putting $100 million into a PAC called Leading the Future to advocate against strict AI regulation. Perplexity and Palantir are also ponying up funds for this new super PAC.
More broadly, major tech firms including Microsoft Corporation, Amazon.com, Inc., Alphabet Inc. (Google) and Meta have all actively lobbied in favour of the US House package which previously called for a 10-year ban on state AI regulation.
The influence of Big Tech via Super PACs and lobbying may continue to shape the architecture of any governance that does emerge be in now or in the future.
Lobbying statistics confirm the surge. According to Open Secrets, more than 450 organizations lobbied on AI issues. It’s up from 6 organizations in 2016, resulting in a 7567% percent increase. Many believe the scale and distribution of massive financial resources via political tech organizations give Big Tech a dominant voice in policy-making.
Why does this matter? When firms invest in Super PACs and lobbying aimed at blocking or diluting regulation, the result may be longer regulatory delays, weaker enforcement, and a bias toward voluntary frameworks rather than binding mandates.
The federal vacuum of AI law it is actively shaped by political capital. The influence of Big Tech via Super PACs and lobbying may continue to shape the architecture of any governance that does emerge. And there’s increasing evidence this regulatory counterforce is also occurring within Europe, as well.
In many ways, the U.S. approach to AI regulation is the mirror image of the European model. The European Union has adopted the AI Act, a risk based, comprehensive framework that classifies AI systems by risk levels and imposes obligations accordingly. In contrast, the U.S. is leaning toward minimal, innovation-friendly regulation and significant industry influence which has created an "anti-Brussels" dynamic.
One could frame this as a “Washington effect”. The Washington effect is how the U.S. government defers to industry, emphasises federal leadership over local oversight and views regulation primarily through the lens of competitiveness and innovation, particularly with China as the opponent.
On the flip side, one sees signs of a regulatory arms race where states, private firms and lobbyists compete to set the shape of AI governance often with the aim of either forestalling regulation or privileging large incumbents.
Given the present trajectory, there is more evidence of an anti-Brussels effect at work. U.S. policy is resisting the heavy-handed, administrative burdensome regulatory posture emerging in Europe. Instead, the U.S. model appears to prioritize speed, market lead and national-security competitive advantage occasionally at the expense of stronger protective regulation.
The United States currently operates without an overarching federal AI law, relying instead on a growing patchwork of state-level initiatives and sector-specific guidance. The policy landscape is shaped by several forces: a long-standing national preference for innovation-first approaches, fragmented federal authority, and active industry engagement in legislative debates. Rather than converging toward a European-style comprehensive framework, the U.S. appears focused on maintaining regulatory flexibility while considering how state-level rules should evolve.
At the same time, significant lobbying activity and the rise of well-funded political action groups add complexity to the policymaking process. Whether this results in a governance model that accelerates technological leadership or one that leaves gaps in societal safeguards is still an open question. The coming years will determine whether the current approach becomes a strategic advantage—or exposes critical areas where oversight needs to catch up.