Gubernatorial candidates across the country are racing to stake out positions on AI as the battle over regulating the technology intensifies.
They’re watching as sitting governors of both parties turn the rapidly evolving technology into a political priority, from Gavin Newsom in California to Ron DeSantis in Florida and Kathy Hochul in New York.
Now they’re starting to join the chorus, calling for more state-based action to put guardrails on AI — even if they don’t know what that would look like yet.
POLITICO reached out to more than 18 Republican and Democratic gubernatorial candidates on their plans and received responses from eight. Nearly all said they want states to take the lead on AI, signaling a frustration with Washington’s inaction and acknowledgement that — if they eventually secure the governor’s mansion — they can’t dismiss the growing warnings.
Candidates said they were motivated by different concerns including fraud, job displacement and children’s safety. Their lack of detail on just how to address AI also reveals a tricky pivot these gubernatorial candidates are facing: To date, much of their campaign messaging on AI or the technology race with China has focused on data centers’ impact on energy prices.
Now, with less than six weeks until Election Day, they’re attempting to talk about AI in a more existential — and more far-reaching — manner.
“The federal government has failed to lead on this issue, and we cannot trust the billionaires profiting off of AI to self-regulate,” said Gina Hinojosa, Texas’ Democratic nominee for governor, in a statement. “State government has the most direct impact on our day-to-day lives, and at a time when Texans are more uncertain and concerned about AI than ever, it’s critical that we put the needs of Texans before corporate profits.” (GOP Gov. Greg Abbott, Hinojosa’s opponent, did not respond to a list of questions.)
Former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, a Democrat who’s heavily favored to succeed Newsom in California, is in conversations with tech industry leaders and economists on the path forward. He will “work to set firm guardrails to prevent the threat of real harms to workers, to children, to our privacy rights, to public safety,” spokesperson Jonathan Underland said in a statement. “California is the birthplace of modern AI, and California will lead the way in making it safe.”
Becerra’s longshot Republican opponent, Steve Hilton, told POLITICO that there’s a place for narrow regulation on AI — even though he thinks some of the warnings are overblown and “preposterous.”
“California should lead on this because we are leading on the technology, and therefore we should lead on the regulation,” Hilton said. “I would prefer to see both the Congress and politicians in other states back off and stop talking about something they don’t understand.”
Recent warnings from top AI leaders about the technology’s potential apocalyptic trajectory roiled Democrats and Republicans both in Washington and on the campaign trail. According to a new POLITICO Poll, a majority of voters now think that AI poses an existential threat to humanity and a plurality want to see a pause in development of advanced models.
“There is a lot of education that’s needed here, and people are navigating an issue that they weren’t even really thinking about six months ago beyond the beyond ‘Should we have data centers’?” said Alyssa Cass, a Democratic strategist who has worked with Alex Bores, a New York state lawmaker who gained national attention in his failed campaign for Congress for opposition to unchecked AI.
“They’re talking about it,” she added. “That’s a meaningful difference.”
The National Governors Association, which convened a working group on AI’s impact on the workforce earlier this year, plans to release a policy roadmap for governors in November on how states can take action.
“We have 39 gubernatorial elections happening in November, and at least 21 new governors will be sworn in in January,” said Sophia Yager, the NGA’s policy director for workforce development and economic policy. “So we wanted to have a resource available not only for incumbent governors who are thinking and working on this issue, but for all of the new governors coming in, wanting to have something available for them from the jump in November.”
So far, Democrats have taken the sharpest aim at the Republican-controlled federal government for its inaction on establishing safeguards against AI.
“While regulation is strongest and most effective at the federal level, President [Donald] Trump dismisses the need for even the most basic guardrails, and we know it can take time for Congress to act,” said Federico Araujo, a spokesperson for Oregon’s Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek, who’s locked in a tightening battle for reelection. “States, in the meantime, must act with more urgency and do everything possible to manage how AI impacts our economies, energy prices and natural resources.”
David Crowley, the Democratic nominee in Wisconsin, told POLITICO in a statement that AI safety is “an issue Wisconsin can address” but “we need strong leadership and partners in Washington who are looking out for us at home.” Still, he didn’t offer specifics, and much of his battle with GOP nominee Tom Tiffany — and even the Democratic primary — has been focused on data centers’ proliferation in Wisconsin.
Tiffany did not respond to a request for comment.
The calls for action on state-based regulation have not been limited to Democrats alone. Republicans — including some Trump allies — signaled a willingness to create safe buffers for the technology at the state level, following the lead of governors like DeSantis and Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, who have long advocated for states’ abilities to install guardrails amid federal inaction.
“States should have a say in how AI is regulated,” said Dan Capodilupo, spokesperson for Iowa GOP gubernatorial nominee Zach Lahn. “Zach is committed to protecting states rights.” State Auditor Rob Sand, his Democratic opponent, did not respond to a request for comment.
In Georgia, Garrison Douglas, a spokesperson for GOP nominee Rick Jackson, stopped short of calling for local regulations but said that the health care executive “supports efforts to ensure that new models are tested for risks and that safety standards are established. He added that Jackson is “committed” to working with the state legislature on protecting consumers from AI-driven scams.
Georgia’s Democratic nominee Keisha Lance Bottoms did not respond to a request for comment.
Trump has labeled concerns about AI’s existential threat a “HOAX” and derided efforts to regulate the technology, and his White House has pushed preemption of state-level regulation. In February, the White House urged Utah legislators to abandon an AI transparency bill; the administration has similarly gone after state-level legislation in Colorado and in California.
A POLITICO review of state-level legislation found 18 laws in 13 states, led by both Republicans and Democrats, that contradict the White House’s preemption framework.
These candidates’ calls for state-based action mirror some early actions that both red and blue state executives are taking from their statehouse perches, explicitly defying Trump’s hands-off approach to regulating the nascent but powerful industry.
This week, Cox urged Washington to “establish a consistent national framework for the development of frontier AI,” and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, in a speech at an AI-focused conference in Pittsburgh, called for the “federal government to step up and regulate the AI industry just like they do for nearly every other industry that significantly impacts our lives.”
Shapiro — who’s up for reelection in the battleground state this year and is considered a 2028 presidential contender — outlined what he sees as the stakes of slow-walking protective measures.
“By the time Congress comes back into session after the election, we could be dealing with a whole new generation of generative AI, and more scary examples of AI agents going rogue,” he said.
Lisa Kashinsky contributed to this report.
