26 Attorneys General Press Congress for Federal AI Rules While Seeking to Preserve State Authority

A major debate over artificial intelligence regulation gained new momentum on September 24, 2026, when a bipartisan coalition of 26 attorneys general publicly urged Congress to establish a comprehensive federal framework for advanced AI development. The request places state legal officials directly into a growing debate over how Washington should oversee rapidly developing AI systems and, just as importantly, how much regulatory authority states should retain.

The coalition, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, includes attorneys general representing 24 states, the District of Columbia, and American Samoa. Their letter was addressed to congressional leaders in both chambers and calls for federal legislation covering safety testing, incident response, regulatory oversight, and state enforcement authority.

The development does not create new legal obligations for AI companies. Instead, the letter represents a coordinated request for Congress to establish national standards. Its significance lies partly in the number of state and territorial legal officials supporting the proposal and their insistence that federal regulation should coexist with state laws rather than replace them.

Attorneys General Seek Federal AI Safety Standards

One of the coalition's central proposals is federal oversight of AI safety testing and standards. The attorneys general argue that experts in AI model safety should help establish consistent performance benchmarks for advanced systems.

The coalition also wants a uniform government process for responding to significant AI incidents. Under the framework proposed in the letter, government investigators would have authority to examine serious incidents and release findings that could help regulators and developers understand what occurred.

Another recommendation concerns internal safety infrastructure at AI companies. The attorneys general argue that organizations developing powerful AI systems should have experienced personnel responsible for critical safety decisions.

These proposals remain recommendations. Congress would have to enact legislation before such requirements could become federal law.

The distinction is important for businesses and consumers following the debate. The September 24 announcement is not an enforcement action, court judgment, administrative regulation, or new statute. It is an attempt by state legal officials to influence the structure of possible future federal legislation.

State Authority Emerges As A Central Legal Question

Perhaps the most consequential legal issue raised by the coalition involves federal preemption.

Federal preemption generally concerns circumstances in which federal law displaces or limits state law. As Congress considers possible national AI rules, lawmakers could decide whether federal standards should establish a nationwide baseline while permitting additional state regulation or whether certain state requirements should be displaced.

The attorneys general are advocating for the first approach.

Their proposal asks Congress not to preempt state AI laws. The coalition also wants state officials to have authority to enforce federal protections created by future legislation.

That position could become an important part of the broader AI policy debate because states have increasingly developed their own approaches to regulating artificial intelligence. A federal law that broadly preempted those measures could shift regulatory authority toward Washington. A framework preserving state authority could instead create overlapping federal and state responsibilities.

For companies operating nationally, the outcome could affect compliance strategies. A single federal framework could provide greater uniformity, while continuing state authority could require companies to monitor different legal requirements across multiple jurisdictions.

Coalition Cites Reported AI Safety Incidents

The attorneys general based part of their request on reported incidents involving advanced AI systems. Their letter describes concerns that increasingly autonomous systems could behave unexpectedly or interact with external computer environments in ways developers did not intend.

Those accounts should be understood as claims and examples presented by the coalition in support of its policy recommendations. The September 24 announcement itself does not constitute an independent judicial or regulatory finding that the incidents establish violations of law.

The coalition nevertheless argues that reported incidents demonstrate the need for stronger government oversight rather than reliance exclusively on voluntary industry safeguards.

The attorneys general also call for greater transparency when serious AI incidents occur. Their proposed framework would create a government led response process intended to investigate incidents and make findings available to the public.

What The September 24 Action Means For AI Regulation

The announcement illustrates how the debate over AI governance is increasingly becoming a question of legal authority as well as technology.

Congress must consider not only whether advanced AI requires additional federal oversight, but also which institutions should establish standards, investigate incidents, and enforce any resulting rules.

The coalition's position adds another dimension to that discussion by emphasizing the role of state governments. The attorneys general are asking lawmakers to create federal safeguards without eliminating the ability of states to adopt and enforce their own protections.

No comprehensive regulatory system was created by the September 24 letter, and Congress is not legally required to adopt the coalition's recommendations. The practical impact will depend on whether lawmakers incorporate any of the proposals into future legislation.

For businesses, attorneys, technology developers, and consumers, the most important takeaway is that the structure of potential AI regulation remains unsettled. Questions involving federal oversight, safety testing, incident reporting, enforcement authority, and federal preemption could determine how future rules operate in practice.

The September 24 action therefore represents a notable development in the evolving relationship between federal authority and state regulation. As lawmakers consider possible AI legislation, the division of regulatory and enforcement power between Washington and the states is likely to remain one of the central legal questions.