Letter from 140 groups slams federal attempt to block states' ability to regulate AI

Ford Turner, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on May 23, 2025

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

Having seen positive uses of artificial intelligence in classrooms, a top education leader in Pennsylvania was baffled to learn Thursday that federal lawmakers want to block states from acting against AI's negative possibilities.

Sherri Smith, executive director of Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators, reacted to language put in the controversial, 1,100-page reconciliation bill in Washington. The wording would ban states from enforcing laws on AI for the next 10 years.

PASA is part of a national school superintendents group that was one of 140 organizations to sign a letter opposing the ban.

"Obviously, I stand behind them writing the letter," said Smith. "I don't think we should make decisions that are based on the ease of business, when it could have a direct, derogatory effect on students."

The bill, passed by the U.S. House early Thursday on a 215-214 vote, now goes to the Senate for consideration. High-profile sections deal with taxes, Medicaid, food stamps, and Pentagon spending on a "Golden Dome" shield.

The provision that blocks state-level AI regulation was put in the bill earlier this month. Late last week, it was condemned by a bipartisan group of 40 state attorneys general that included Pennsylvania's Dave Sunday.

They sent a letter to federal lawmakers saying the provision — coupled with the lack of any AI oversight policy at the federal level — would have the effect of "leaving Americans entirely unprotected from the potential harms of AI."

The second letter to federal lawmakers, also condemning the language, was dated Monday and was signed by a varied group of 140 organizations that included the school superintendents group.

"No person, not matter their politics, wants to live in a world where AI makes life-or-death decisions without accountability," the letter said. "This is underscored by the fact that state attorneys general, from all 50 states, have warned Congress that AI has been used to harm children including through child sexual abuse material."

Smith said AI has been used by Pennsylvania teachers to reshape standard lesson plans for students in higher-achieving or lower-achieving levels. Students have been asked to use it to generate an argument on a topic, Smith said, and then have been asked to write the opposing argument themselves.

"There are so many ways to use AI, and a lot of it can be positive," she said. At the same time, she added, "If they don't control it, there can be a lot of harms."

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania lawmakers continued to generate ideas for new laws on AI.

On Thursday, Democratic Reps. Kristine Howard and Chris Pielli, both from Chester County, issued a proposal to make it clear in state law "that the consequences of Artificial Intelligence must be treated as those of the person or entity deploying the AI, in the same way companies are liable for the actions of employees."

The proposal came in the form of a memo seeking co-sponsors. Pielli and Howard wrote that questions of liability on AI remain unanswered. With the technology already embedding itself in society, they said, there is no time to wait for court rulings.

"Legal standards and guidance on this rapidly evolving economic frontier are needed to protect consumers and the public," they wrote. "The risk of bad actors evading criminal or civil liability by blaming AI is too great."

_____