Gubernatorial candidates across the United States are increasingly positioning artificial intelligence regulation as a primary state-level policy issue, driven by perceived inaction in Washington and growing voter concern. As the November elections approach, candidates from both parties are calling for state-based guardrails on AI, focusing on impacts ranging from job displacement and fraud to children’s safety and energy costs.
What the Right Is Saying
Republican candidates are also embracing state-level action, though often with a narrower scope and skepticism toward federal or heavy-handed state intervention. Steve Hilton, the Republican candidate for governor in California, argued that the state should lead on regulation because it leads on technology, but he cautioned against broad restrictions. Hilton described some warnings about AI as “preposterous” and stated, “I would prefer to see both the Congress and politicians in other states back off and stop talking about something they don't understand.”
The right’s focus often intersects with economic concerns, particularly regarding the infrastructure required for AI, such as data centers. Candidates have highlighted the strain on energy grids and the resulting impact on consumer prices as a primary state responsibility. While Hilton supports narrow regulation, the broader Republican strategy appears to balance pro-innovation stances with acknowledgment of local infrastructure challenges. Texas Governor Greg Abbott, the Republican incumbent, did not respond to requests for comment on his specific AI policy plans, but the party’s general platform has historically emphasized deregulation, suggesting any new state actions may be limited to specific consumer protections or energy reliability measures.
What the Left Is Saying
Democratic candidates and incumbents are framing federal inaction as a failure of leadership, arguing that states must step in to protect residents from corporate overreach. Texas Democratic nominee for governor Gina Hinojosa stated that the federal government has failed to lead on the issue, asserting, “We cannot trust the billionaires profiting off of AI to self-regulate.” She emphasized that state government has the most direct impact on daily lives and argued for putting “the needs of Texans before corporate profits” amid rising uncertainty about the technology.
In California, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, the Democratic front-runner to succeed Governor Gavin Newsom, indicated he is consulting with tech leaders and economists to establish firm guardrails. A spokesperson for Becerra noted the goal is to prevent “real harms to workers, to children, to our privacy rights, to public safety,” with the stated ambition that “California will lead the way in making it safe.” Similarly, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, a Democrat running for reelection, stated through a spokesperson that while federal regulation is ideal, President Donald Trump “dismisses the need for even the most basic guardrails.” Kotek’s team argued that states “must act with more urgency” to manage AI’s impact on economies, energy prices, and natural resources.
What the Numbers Show
According to a recent POLITICO Poll, a majority of voters now believe that AI poses an existential threat to humanity, and a plurality of respondents support a pause in the development of advanced AI models. The political significance of this shift is underscored by the scale of the upcoming elections: there are 39 gubernatorial races in November, with at least 21 new governors expected to be sworn in in January. The National Governors Association (NGA) has convened a working group on AI’s impact on the workforce and plans to release a policy roadmap for governors in November. Sophia Yager, the NGA’s policy director for workforce development and economic policy, noted the need to provide resources for both incumbent and incoming governors “from the jump in November.”
The transition in campaign messaging is also evident in the timing. Candidates have moved from discussing AI primarily through the lens of data center energy consumption to broader existential and economic questions in just six months. Alyssa Cass, a Democratic strategist involved in recent campaigns, noted that candidates are “navigating an issue that they weren't even really thinking about six months ago beyond ‘Should we have data centers?’” POLITICO reached out to more than 18 Republican and Democratic gubernatorial candidates, receiving responses from eight, nearly all of whom indicated a desire for states to take the lead on AI governance.
The Bottom Line
The convergence of voter anxiety, federal gridlock, and state-level political ambition is turning AI regulation into a central plank of gubernatorial campaigns. With the National Governors Association preparing a policy roadmap for incoming executives, the post-election landscape is likely to see a patchwork of state laws addressing AI safety, labor displacement, and infrastructure. The key metric to watch in the coming weeks is whether this rhetoric translates into specific legislative proposals or if it remains a general campaign theme focused on opposing federal inaction. For voters, the choice may hinge on whether they prioritize immediate state-level consumer protections or broader, potentially slower-moving federal frameworks.