Buried deep within the federal budget bill now under negotiation is a provision that could reshape how artificial intelligence (AI) is regulated across the United States — including in the workplace.
Section 43201 of the budget reconciliation package, sometimes called the “AI Preemption Rider,” would temporarily block states from enforcing or passing their own AI-related laws for ten years.
What Section 43201 Does
The rider would create a 10 year nationwide moratorium on any state or local government from enforcing or adopting laws that specifically regulate artificial intelligence systems, models, or automated decision tools.
In plain terms, if Section 43201 becomes law, states would lose the power to oversee or restrict how companies use AI for things like hiring, promotions, pay decisions, or workplace surveillance. At the same time, however, the provision allocates federal funding to modernize government use of AI.
Why Congress Included It
Supporters in Congress argue that businesses are struggling to comply with a confusing “patchwork” of state AI regulations. California, New York City, and Colorado have all begun regulating automated hiring and decision systems, each in slightly different ways.
Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia have proposed broad regulatory frameworks, but those have not yet resulted in any significant legislation. In fact, Virginia’s Governor Glenn Youngkin recently vetoed House Bill (HB) No. 2094, which would have created a new regulatory framework for businesses that develop or use “high-risk” AI systems.
Proponents say a federal moratorium would create consistency while Congress works on a single, national framework for AI. They describe the moratorium as a time-out that gives regulators space to catch up without penalizing innovation. Opponents, however, view the rider as a sweeping power grab that could strip states of their ability to protect workers and consumers from discriminatory or unsafe AI systems. They warn that this type of blanket preemption could leave individuals without recourse if an algorithm denies them a job or promotion.
If enacted, the rider would affect employees in several key ways.
State Hiring and AI-Bias Laws Could Go Dark
Many states and cities have passed or are considering laws requiring companies to audit AI hiring tools for bias or to notify applicants when automated systems are used.
Under Section 43201, those laws could not be enforced for ten years. Employers would no longer need to follow state-specific disclosure or bias-testing requirements.
Federal Law Becomes the Only Guardrail
Workers would still have protections under federal anti-discrimination laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
However, those statutes were written long before AI existed. They do not explicitly require algorithmic bias testing or transparency about how automated tools make employment decisions.
Without new federal rules, employees harmed by AI decisions would need to prove traditional discrimination — a difficult task when the bias may be hidden inside a complex algorithm.
Less Transparency and Accountability
Many state laws include notice requirements, giving applicants the right to know when an algorithm or AI system was used in evaluating them. If those laws are frozen, candidates may no longer receive such disclosures, and internal auditing practices could decline.
Impact on Individual Employees
For individual workers and jobseekers, the biggest effect would be reduced state-level protection.
If a state like New York or California previously required bias audits or transparency reports for AI tools, those rights could be suspended. A person who believes an automated hiring platform rejected them unfairly might lose state-based remedies and have to rely on slower, more complex federal processes.
Civil-rights groups warn that this could widen existing inequalities. Automated decision systems have been shown to unintentionally screen out older applicants, people with disabilities, or racial minorities. With states sidelined, oversight of these systems may depend entirely on how aggressively federal agencies enforce existing anti-discrimination laws.
Where the Provision Stands in Congress
As of early November 2025, the House of Representatives has passed a version of the budget bill containing Section 43201. However, the provision faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Budget experts have questioned whether it qualifies for inclusion in a reconciliation bill under the Senate’s “Byrd Rule,” which limits non-budgetary items in spending legislation. If the rule is applied strictly, the AI preemption language could be removed.
Still, with ongoing government funding negotiations, the rider could resurface as part of a broader political compromise. Lawmakers have used similar riders in the past as bargaining chips in end-of-year budget talks.
What It Means for Employees and Jobseekers
If the moratorium takes effect, individuals may find fewer state-level protections and less transparency about AI-driven decisions. That makes it even more important to understand existing federal rights:
- You still cannot be discriminated against based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age.
- You can file complaints with the EEOC or Department of Labor if you suspect discriminatory treatment, whether human or algorithmic.
- Keep records of hiring interactions and communications — they may be crucial if bias is suspected.
Looking Ahead
Whether Section 43201 remains in the final budget or not, its introduction marks a turning point. It highlights the tension between federal uniformity and state experimentation in managing the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence in the workplace. Employees should expect further debate in 2026 over how far government should go in regulating algorithmic decision-making — and who gets to decide.
Potomac Legal Group continues to monitor these developments. If you have questions about how potential AI preemption could affect your rights, contact our employment law team for guidance.
Leave a Reply