Instead, they found themselves at the center of a new administration strategy to block a patchwork of state artificial intelligence regulations, according to two people familiar with the meeting.
The separate sessions this week with child safety groups and technology executives came just days after a bipartisan House proposal on AI received a chilly reception from lawmakers. The White House is now leaning into the politically potent issue of protecting minors as a way to argue that federal action should supersede state-level efforts, the people said.
Administration officials have grown concerned that a growing number of state AI bills, particularly in California and Connecticut, could create a compliance nightmare for companies and undermine the federal government’s ability to set a unified national policy. The child safety framing offers a more palatable justification for preemption than industry arguments about innovation and competitiveness.
Children’s advocates who attended the meeting said they were told the administration wants to ensure that any federal AI framework includes strong protections for minors. But some participants expressed skepticism, noting that the White House has not yet released a detailed proposal and that previous efforts to pass children’s online safety legislation have stalled in Congress.
The tech industry has been lobbying heavily for federal preemption of state AI laws, arguing that complying with dozens of different state regimes would be costly and confusing. Executives from major AI companies met separately with White House officials this week to reinforce that message, according to a person with direct knowledge of the discussions.
The push comes amid a flurry of state-level activity. California lawmakers are advancing a bill that would require safety testing for large AI models, while Connecticut is considering legislation that would regulate automated decision-making systems. Both bills have drawn opposition from industry groups who say they could stifle innovation.
The White House strategy carries risks. If the administration fails to deliver a concrete federal proposal, it could embolden states to move forward with their own laws. And children’s advocates warn that using child safety as a rationale for preemption could backfire if the resulting federal rules are weaker than what states are considering.
