WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Donald Trump’s ambitious plan to ban U.S. states from regulating artificial intelligence for the next decade is facing unexpected resistance — from inside the tech industry itself. Microsoft’s Chief Scientific Officer, Dr. Eric Horvitz, publicly criticized the proposal this week, warning that the deregulation strategy would “hold us back” and pose serious risks to scientific progress and public safety.
Horvitz, a former adviser to President Biden on AI and ethics, made the remarks at the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence’s annual conference. His comments come at a critical moment, as the Trump administration pushes for sweeping legislation to restrict local governments from enacting any AI-specific laws until at least 2035.
“Banning regulation is not just short-sighted,” Horvitz said. “It’s counterproductive. Guidance and reliability controls are essential to advancing AI safely and responsibly.”
Trump’s proposal, which has been folded into a massive spending package nicknamed the “Big Beautiful Bill,” is part of a broader effort to ensure U.S. dominance in artificial intelligence over rivals like China. The bill is expected to pass the Republican-led House and faces heated debate in the Senate ahead of a symbolic vote scheduled near Independence Day.
But while Trump and his allies argue that regulation would cripple innovation, critics say the move prioritizes political optics and corporate interests over long-term safety.
Reports have surfaced that Microsoft, along with other tech giants like Meta, Google, and Amazon, is backing the deregulation bill through an aggressive lobbying campaign. That fact has only added to the controversy surrounding Horvitz’s remarks, which appear to contradict the company’s behind-the-scenes efforts.
“This is not just about speed — it’s about wisdom,” said Horvitz. “AI has already demonstrated capabilities for misuse: misinformation, manipulation, even potential biological threats. Turning off the guardrails doesn’t help. It hinders trust.”
Trump’s vice president, J.D. Vance, defended the administration’s approach, arguing that any pause in AI development would allow China to overtake the U.S. in the race for technological supremacy.
“If we stop, they won’t,” Vance said. “Then we become subject to China-mediated AI. That’s not an option.”
Despite the administration’s aggressive stance, experts outside government are sounding alarms. Stuart Russell, professor of computer science at the University of California, Berkeley, called the proposed moratorium “reckless,” citing studies suggesting AI systems could eventually pose existential risks.
“Would we accept a technology with a 30% chance of wiping out humanity?” Russell asked during the same conference. “Because some AI creators themselves believe that’s the risk level we’re dealing with.”
The proposal has also fueled division in Washington. Proponents argue it will preserve U.S. competitiveness and simplify the legal landscape for AI developers. Opponents warn it may erode public trust and leave vulnerable communities unprotected from AI-driven harms.
While the White House maintains the ban is necessary to streamline progress, Horvitz’s dissent highlights a growing fracture within the tech industry between commercial ambitions and scientific caution.
Microsoft has not publicly responded to Horvitz’s remarks or confirmed whether it will reassess its support for the bill. Meanwhile, the administration appears undeterred.
“This legislation ensures America stays number one in AI,” Trump said at a recent rally. “No red tape, no delays — just results.”
Yet for some, results without regulation may be exactly what they fear.
As Horvitz put it, “Progress in AI must be matched with responsibility — or the consequences could be irreversible.”
