Technologies
Congress Might Halt State AI Regulations. What It Means for You and Your Privacy
House Republicans are proposing a 10-year moratorium on the enforcement of state rules around artificial intelligence.
States will not be able to enforce their regulations on artificial intelligence technology for a decade under a plan being considered in the US House of Representatives. The legislation, in an amendment accepted this week by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, says no state or political subdivision “may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems or automated decision systems” for 10 years. The proposal would still need the approval of both chambers of Congress and President Donald Trump before it can become law.
AI developers and some lawmakers have said federal action is necessary to keep states from creating a patchwork of different rules and regulations across the US that could slow the technology’s growth. The rapid growth in generative AI since ChatGPT exploded on the scene in late 2022 has led companies to fit the technology in as many spaces as possible. The economic implications are significant, as the US and China race to see which country’s tech will predominate, but generative AI poses privacy, transparency and other risks for consumers that lawmakers have sought to temper.
“We need, as an industry and as a country, one clear federal standard, whatever it may be,” Alexandr Wang, founder and CEO of the data company Scale AI, told lawmakers during an April hearing. “But we need one, we need clarity as to one federal standard and have preemption to prevent this outcome where you have 50 different standards.”
Efforts to limit the ability of states to regulate artificial intelligence could mean fewer consumer protections around a technology that is increasingly seeping into every aspect of American life. “There have been a lot of discussions at the state level, and I would think that it’s important for us to approach this problem at multiple levels,” said Anjana Susarla, a professor at Michigan State University who studies AI. “We could approach it at the national level. We can approach it at the state level too. I think we need both.”
Several states have already started regulating AI
The proposed language would bar states from enforcing any regulation, including those already on the books. The exceptions are rules and laws that make things easier for AI development and those that apply the same standards to non-AI models and systems that do similar things. These kinds of regulations are already starting to pop up. The biggest focus is not in the US, but in Europe, where the European Union has already implemented standards for AI. But states are starting to get in on the action.
Colorado passed a set of consumer protections last year, set to go into effect in 2026. California adopted more than a dozen AI-related laws last year. Other states have laws and regulations that often deal with specific issues such as deepfakes or require AI developers to publish information about their training data. At the local level, some regulations also address potential employment discrimination if AI systems are used in hiring.
“States are all over the map when it comes to what they want to regulate in AI,” said Arsen Kourinian, partner at the law firm Mayer Brown. So far in 2025, state lawmakers have introduced at least 550 proposals around AI, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In the House committee hearing last month, Rep. Jay Obernolte, a Republican from California, signaled a desire to get ahead of more state-level regulation. “We have a limited amount of legislative runway to be able to get that problem solved before the states get too far ahead,” he said.
While some states have laws on the books, not all of them have gone into effect or seen any enforcement. That limits the potential short-term impact of a moratorium, said Cobun Zweifel-Keegan, managing director in Washington for the International Association of Privacy Professionals. “There isn’t really any enforcement yet.”Â
A moratorium would likely deter state legislators and policymakers from developing and proposing new regulations, Zweifel-Keegan said. “The federal government would become the primary and potentially sole regulator around AI systems,” he said.
What a moratorium on state AI regulation means
AI developers have asked for any guardrails placed on their work to be consistent and streamlined. During a Senate Commerce Committee hearing last week, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, that an EU-style regulatory system “would be disastrous” for the industry. Altman suggested instead that the industry develop its own standards.
Asked by Sen. Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, if industry self-regulation is enough at the moment, Altman said he thought some guardrails would be good but, “It’s easy for it to go too far. As I have learned more about how the world works, I am more afraid that it could go too far and have really bad consequences.” (Disclosure: Ziff Davis, parent company of CNET, in April filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.)
Concerns from companies — both the developers that create AI systems and the “deployers” who use them in interactions with consumers — often stem from fears that states will mandate significant work such as impact assessments or transparency notices before a product is released, Kourinian said. Consumer advocates have said more regulations are needed, and hampering the ability of states could hurt the privacy and safety of users.
“AI is being used widely to make decisions about people’s lives without transparency, accountability or recourse — it’s also facilitating chilling fraud, impersonation and surveillance,” Ben Winters, director of AI and privacy at the Consumer Federation of America, said in a statement. “A 10-year pause would lead to more discrimination, more deception and less control — simply put, it’s siding with tech companies over the people they impact.”
A moratorium on specific state rules and laws could result in more consumer protection issues being dealt with in court or by state attorneys general, Kourinian said. Existing laws around unfair and deceptive practices that are not specific to AI would still apply. “Time will tell how judges will interpret those issues,” he said.
Susarla said the pervasiveness of AI across industries means states might be able to regulate issues like privacy and transparency more broadly, without focusing on the technology. But a moratorium on AI regulation could lead to such policies being tied up in lawsuits. “It has to be some kind of balance between ‘we don’t want to stop innovation,’ but on the other hand, we also need to recognize that there can be real consequences,” she said.
Much policy around the governance of AI systems does happen because of those so-called technology-agnostic rules and laws, Zweifel-Keegan said. “It’s worth also remembering that there are a lot of existing laws and there is a potential to make new laws that don’t trigger the moratorium but do apply to AI systems as long as they apply to other systems,” he said.
Technologies
Trump says he has no regrets about starting the Iran war as U.S. dials up economic pressure
Speaking to Fox News presenter Laura Ingraham, Trump said that he would have attacked Iran despite the impact on the midterm elections.
U.S. President Donald Trump said he has no regrets about starting the Iran war and added that “If I had it to do again, I would do exactly what I did.”
Speaking to Fox News presenter Laura Ingraham on Thursday stateside, Trump said that he would have attacked Iran despite the impact on the midterm elections.
“If we hadn’t done Iran, you would be cruising to midterms victory right now,” Ingraham told Trump, to which Trump replied “supposing we were cruising, and all of a sudden Iran has a nuclear weapon. They would use it.”
He added that if Iran had a nuclear weapon, the Islamic Republic would “wipe out” Israel and the Middle East, and start hitting U.S. cities.
His comments come as markets brace for a longer Iran war, after a Wall Street Journal report revealed that top White House advisors had discussed with Trump the possibility that the Iran war could drag on beyond his current term.
Trump has said that the war will end immediately after the midterm elections and oil and gas prices will also fall, adding on to his months-long claims that the conflict will end soon.
In separate comments to NewsNation on Thursday, Trump denied reports that there was any damage to U.S. assets, after Iran claimed it had hit multiple U.S. fighter aircraft at a base in Jordan.
“No damage. No nothing,” Trump said, when asked if there was any truth to the reports.
Economic pressure
Washington is continuing efforts to isolate Iran from its economic network, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent flagging sanctions against “a large bank” next week.
“We’re going to do it on Monday because we want to honor the memory of our fallen citizens on 9/11. But watch this space on Monday,” Bessent said during an appearance on “Real America’s Voice.”
Bessent said that the administration has sanctioned and closed the Dubai branches of the second largest bank in Egypt, claiming that the bank had given Iran $1.8 billion dollars. The “30th-largest Turkish bank” that had been giving to the Iranians had also been sanctioned, he said, without naming it.
The U.S. had sanctioned Turkey-based Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi (Golden Global Bank) and its subsidiaries last week.
Trump, in the NewsNation interview, was also asked how Iran could continue holding out under the current economic pressure.
“I don’t know that they’re gonna be able to hold out,” Trump said. “But it’ll get settled after the elections. Or maybe sooner. But it’ll get settled right after the election.”
Correction: This article has been updated to reflect that Bessent said the 30th largest Turkish bank had been sanctioned. An earlier version misstated the bank’s ranking.
Technologies
U.S. diesel price tops $6 per gallon, a record high as Ukraine and Iran wars ripple through economy
U.S. diesel prices hit their highest level ever as fuel supply disruption stemming from the Ukraine and Iran wars lifts transportation costs.
U.S. diesel prices hit $6 per gallon on Friday for the first time ever, as fuel supply disruptions triggered by the Ukraine and Iran wars raises transportation costs across the entire economy.
Truckers and farmers are paying about 63% more to fill up their semis and tractors than they did at this time last year, according to data from AAA. The average price nationwide is now about $6.06 per gallon.
Prices are even higher in California, the biggest agriculture state in the U.S., at $7.98 per gallon.
Fuel costs are rising as crude oil prices have surged in response to a sharp escalation in fighting between the U.S. and Iran this month. U.S. crude oil futures topped $100 per barrel on Thursday for the first time since May. The contract has gained about 20% in September.
Diesel is the real lifeblood of the economy even though consumers tend to pay more attention to retail gasoline prices, said Bob McNally, president of Rapidan Energy, in an interview with CNBC’s “The Exchange” on Tuesday.
Higher diesel prices are passed down to consumers in what they pay for food, consumer goods and energy. Diesel fuels the trucks, trains and ships that bring goods to market. It powers the machinery that farmers use to plant and harvest food. And it heats homes and generates electricity in some cases.
This content is blocked because you are not allowing cookies.
To view this content, click on Cookie Preferences here or at the bottom of the page to allow all cookies.
“It’s the more insidious, more costly, and more impactful fuel,” McNally said. “As we climb higher, it is a real concern.”
Diesel prices at these levels will be a “silent killer” for the economy, said Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, in an interview with CNBC’s “Power Lunch” Tuesday.
Gasoline prices, meanwhile, have never been this high this late in the year, De Haan said. Prices at the pump hit a Labor Day record of $4.15 per gallon earlier this week. Americans are spending about $700 million more per day on gas and diesel than they did a year ago, the analyst said.
“There’s sticker shock there for consumers,” De Haan said.
Fuel costs are rising as the Iran and Ukraine wars have disrupted global supplies. Kyiv has pounded Russian refineries, forcing Moscow to ban diesel exports. Iran and its militant Houthi allies in Yemen have also hit the refineries of U.S. Gulf allies. Fuel exports through the Strait of Hormuz are constrained due to the Iranian attacks on tankers.
The wars in Eastern Europe and the Middle East have shut down refineries with about 5 million barrels per day of capacity, said Valero Chief Operating Officer Gary Simmons on the U.S. refiner’s July 30 earnings call.
The world has lost nearly 8% of its diesel supply with little spare refining capacity available to make up the shortfall, said Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates, in a Wednesday note.
Rising diesel prices pose an “enormous challenge” for the Trump administration, said Helima Croft, head of global commodity strategy at RBC Capital Markets, in a Sept. 4 interview with CNBC’s “Power Lunch.”
“U.S. refineries are running at 98% utilization rates — there is just no spare capacity,” Croft said.
Technologies
Buffett’s confidence in troubled decade-old acquisition finally pays off
Warren Buffett has said he paid too much for Precision Castparts in 2016. Now its complex metal castings are in high demand.
(This is the Warren Buffett Watch newsletter, news and analysis on all things Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway. You can sign up here to receive it every Friday evening in your inbox.)
Buffett’s confidence in troubled decade-old acquisition finally pays off
Six years ago, when Berkshire Hathaway took an $11 billion write-down of its $37.2 billion 2016 acquisition of Precision Castparts, Warren Buffett wrote in his annual letter to shareholders he had paid “too much” for the company, which makes “complex metal components and products.”
While it was a “fine company – the best in its business,” he had been “simply too optimistic” about its profit potential, a “miscalculation … laid bare” by the enormous downturn for the aerospace industry, Precision Castparts’ largest customers, amid the Covid pandemic.
In a CNBC interview when the deal was first announced, Buffett admitted it was “a very high multiple for us to pay,” but told shareholders at the 2016 meeting he had great confidence in Mark Donegan, the company’s CEO, both then and now, and the company’s long-term profit outlook.
It’s taken longer than he planned, but Buffett’s purchase is now looking pretty good.
As Reuters puts it, there is currently a shortage of the “complex” products Precision Castparts makes that are essential for engine turbine blades.
They’re also used in natural gas turbines, which are in demand to produce energy for artificial intelligence data centers.
This week, GE Aerospace announced it would pay $11.75 billion to acquire Consolidated Precision Products, one of the few companies that competes against Precision Castparts.
Barron’s calls that “pricey” at 26 times projected 2027 earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization.
Using the same multiple, Barron’s estimates Precision Castparts is worth around $100 billion. That’s well above the potential value of $60 billion to $75 billion it cited in an article last month that said the unit “probably has become one of the more valuable divisions” of Berkshire.
It’s also nearly three times the 2016 purchase price.
In the Barron’s piece, Andrew Bary said Berkshire, and its share price, aren’t “getting much credit” for the subsidiary’s rising value, in part because CEO Greg Abel, like Buffett, doesn’t do analyst conference calls or investor events that could draw attention to the unit’s performance.
His recommendation: “Without Warren Buffett at the helm, Berkshire may have to start telling its story if it wants to attract a new generation of investors. This year’s trading action suggests that something may need to change.”
Berkshire bounces a bit as Wall Street sells off
Berkshire Hathaway shares managed a modest gain this week even as Wall Street’s major averages declined, a small departure from the 2026 “trading action” Bary cites.
Both the Class A and Class B shares gained almost 0.9% while the S&P 500 fell by 0.8%.
Until Friday’s bounce, that benchmark index, along with the Dow Industrials and the Nasdaq Composite, had dropped four days in a row as oil and bond yields moved higher.
Even with this week’s outperformance, Berkshire’s B shares still trail the S&P 500 by more than 10 percentage points so far this year.
Nebraska candidate moves to replace ad that included Buffett’s image
The campaign team for the Republican running in Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District accelerated the deployment of a new campaign ad after Susie Buffett complained about a previous commercial that briefly included an image of her father, Warren Buffett.
In the ad, a picture of Buffett and his name appear on screen for roughly two seconds as candidate Brinker Harding says, “Here in Omaha, we know a thing or two about the stock market, some more than others. But we do it without insider information.”
He then goes on to highlight his call for a ban on Congressional stock trading, saying some lawmakers “trade on secrets you’ll never know,” as they “get rich” while “we barely get by.”
In a report that led its 10 PM CT newscast Wednesday evening, ABC affiliate KETV in Omaha reported Susie Buffett had asked Harding on Sept. 2 to remove the ad.
She told the station, “I think it’s worth it to say that Warren did not give Brinker his permission to use his face or name in his ad.
“It implies that my dad endorses him. He did not have permission to use it.”
The KETV report quoted Harding as saying in a statement, “In Nebraska, we work hard and support each other, and we do it honestly. Warren Buffett exemplifies that, and that was the point of my ad.”
The report said Harding did not comment on whether the ad would be taken down but noted “it does look like new ads from his campaign are beginning to run on some stations.”
A Harding campaign spokesperson told me the campaign did not think its ad implied a Buffett endorsement, but to be respectful to the Buffett family, it responded to her concern by accelerating the rollout of its next planned ad by several days, although its effort was hampered by the Labor Day weekend.
The commercial now running does not show or mention Buffett.
BUFFETT & BERKSHIRE AROUND THE INTERNET
Some links may require a subscription:
– Best’s News and Research Service: 2026 Best’s Rankings: Berkshire Hathaway Takes DPW Top Spot Among Accident & Health Lines
– Financial Times: The day Warren Buffett saved Salomon Brothers
HIGHLIGHTS FROM CNBC’S BUFFETT ARCHIVE
The effects of 9/11 on Berkshire and the insurance industry (2002)
Warren Buffett shares his thoughts on the 9/11 attacks and explains how Berkshire’s insurance companies have started taking terrorism into account when writing policies.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: I know you lost a lot of money as a result of 9/11. But I would like to know how 9/11 changed your life and your investment strategy?
WARREN BUFFETT: It made everybody, I think, in the country aware, I mean, we’ve gone through world wars and all of that, and essentially felt quite protected within these borders.
And I have been quite worried about — Charlie can attest to — you know, the possibility, particularly of some kind of nuclear device in this country, by — probably more likely by terrorists than by some, at least, declared act of war by another state.
And 9/11 made everybody realize that as humans have not progressed, particularly, in terms of how they behave with each other over the years, they have progressed enormously in their ability to inflict damage on those they hate for one reason or another…
In terms of the business aspects of it, in your question, obviously the area at Berkshire that it effects most significantly, by miles, is insurance.
And prior to 9/11, even though we recognized that there could be huge monetary damages that flowed from the activities of what I would call deranged people, we hadn’t really written the contracts in such a way as to either get paid for taking that risk or to exclude the risk. In other words, we were throwing it in for nothing.
We had excluded risk for war. I mean, we knew that we’d seen what had happened in England in the 40s, and so we had taken account of something that some of us had seen with our own eyes, but we didn’t take account of something that we knew was possible, but we just hadn’t seen. And that’s, you know, that’s the human condition, to some degree.
Since September 11th, everybody in the insurance business recognizes that they had exposures that they weren’t charging for, and they either had to exclude those exposures or they had to charge for them.
We have written — first thing we had to do, of course, is we had lots of policies on the books that left us exposed to this, and most of those policies ran for a year, starting at different points. Those have run off to a great degree, but they’re not entirely run off.
The other thing we did was on new policies. We have sold a fair amount, quite a large amount, of terrorism insurance that excludes what we call NCB, nuclear, chemical, and biological, as well as fire following nuclear.
And, we can take a fair amount of exposure to that sort of terrorism, because it doesn’t — it won’t aggregate. It aggregated at the Twin Towers in a way that — World Trade Center — in a way that just about was as extreme as you could get for non-NCB-type activities.
I mean, that was a huge amount of damage done without nuclear, chemical, or biological.
But we can have tens of billions of dollars with NCB excluded throughout a greater New York area, or something, but we can’t have hundreds of billions of exposure that would be exposed, say, to, nuclear activities, because there an act or two, or three, coordinated, could cause damage that would destroy the insurance industry.
And if we had coverage on that, it would destroy us as well.
BERKSHIRE STOCK WATCH
Four weeks
Twelve months
BRK.A stock price: $766,000.00
BRK.B stock price: $510.37
BRK.B P/E (TTM): 12.83
Berkshire Cash as of June 30: $365.5 billion (Down 8.0% from March 31)
Excluding Rail Cash and Subtracting T-Bills Payable: $359.2 billion (Down 3.8% from March 31)
Berkshire repurchased $4.5 billion of its shares in Q2 2026.
BERKSHIRE’S TOP EQUITY HOLDINGS – Sep. 11, 2026
Berkshire’s top holdings of disclosed publicly traded stocks in the U.S. and Japan, by market value, based on the latest closing prices.
Holdings are as of June 30, 2026, as reported in Berkshire Hathaway’s 13F filing on August 14, 2026, except for:
– Mitsubishi, which is as of April 30, 2026
The full list of holdings and current market values is available from CNBC.com’s Berkshire Hathaway Portfolio Tracker.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
Please send any questions or comments about the newsletter to me at alex.crippen@cnbc.com. (Sorry, but we don’t forward questions or comments to Buffett himself.)
If you aren’t already subscribed to this newsletter, you can sign up here.
Also, Buffett’s annual letters to shareholders are highly recommended reading. There are collected here on Berkshire’s website.
— Alex Crippen, Editor, Warren Buffett Watch
-
Technologies4 years agoTech Companies Need to Be Held Accountable for Security, Experts Say
-
Technologies4 years agoBest Handheld Game Console in 2023
-
Technologies5 years agoBlack Friday 2021: The best deals on TVs, headphones, kitchenware, and more
-
Technologies4 years agoTighten Up Your VR Game With the Best Head Straps for Quest 2
-
Technologies5 years agoGoogle to require vaccinations as Silicon Valley rethinks return-to-office policies
-
Technologies4 years agoThe number of Сrypto Bank customers increased by 10% in five days
-
Technologies5 years agoVerum, Wickr and Threema: next generation secured messengers
-
Technologies5 years agoOlivia Harlan Dekker for Verum Messenger
