COMMENTARY: Trump Will Reject Nebraska’s AI Bills. So Should the Rest of Its Elected Leaders.

by Andy Reuss

Last month, President Trump amped up efforts to kill an AI bill in Utah, calling it “unfixable.” Unfortunately, Nebraska lawmakers are headed for the same kind of fight, as our legislators are considering several bills that contradict the President’s approach to AI.

If we want the U.S. to lead in AI, for our state to compete in the global economy, and for our families to benefit from this incredible technology, Nebraska’s leaders should reject those bad policies—before President Trump is forced to fight them in court.

Last year, the President laid out his vision for AI, saying “The United States needs to innovate faster and more comprehensively than our competitors in the development… of new AI technology across every field.”

And in December, he issued an executive order to overcome an obstacle to U.S. dominance that both Republicans and Democrats acknowledge is critical: “State-by-state regulation [that] creates a patchwork of 50 different regulatory regimes.”

Why? President Trump recognizes that economic growth and scientific breakthroughs from U.S. leadership in AI won’t happen if we smother it with red tape. And that progress certainly won’t happen in Nebraska if our leaders push bad policies that protect no one and make innovation harder.

Just look at LB1083, the Transparency in Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Act—which mirrors the Utah bill the President publicly opposes.

Everyone can agree with its core goal: Protecting children.

But would LB1083 do that? And at what cost?

The answers: No—and big ones for our startups and small businesses.

After all, federal and state law already regulate how information is collected from children. Federal and state law enforcement already prosecute bad actors who deceive or harm consumers, including kids online.

Our statutes already promise harsh punishment for encouraging self-harm, including through negligence. And in the few, extreme cases where tragedy has struck, platforms have been held accountable through suits under existing law.

LB1083 would be redundant at best—except that its compliance costs could cripple all but the biggest businesses in Big Tech.

Though the bill claims to focus only on companies with $500 million in annual revenue, it could shove expensive legal work onto virtually anyone operating AI in Nebraska.

Small businesses selling to bigger corporations could be forced to hire pricey lawyers to meet the same compliance standards, simply because they’re in the larger supply chain.

And startups using powerful models and deployers leveraging open-source code could be swept up, too—which could chill investment while discouraging entrepreneurs from using AI tools.

Nebraska’s other AI-related bills risk doing more of the same.

LB1185 similarly claims to solve a problem but fails to show it exists, prohibiting things already prohibited, like deceptive representation or negligence in response to suicidal ideation.

But LB1185 also risks suppressing helpful uses of AI. The bill would ban a lot of gamification—or the use of rewards to engage users—for minors. It’s easy to understand why: Apps like TikTok exploit dopamine hits to keep kids on their screens more often and longer.

But should that ban apply to an AI app that uses points to teach kids math? Or an AI tutor that rewards distracted students so they focus on their homework?

LB1185 could prevent parents and teachers from using those tools to help every kid reach their full potential.

LB1078 and LB1006 also threaten to stifle innovation before it can help small businesses and the customers they serve.

The issue those bills claim to fix—so-called “dynamic pricing”—isn’t an issue at all. When done competitively, changing prices so that supply better meets demand means more people get what they need while reducing shortages.

And don’t forget: Consumers can and do use AI-powered tools themselves to make better purchases.

Banning this technology would trap Nebraska businesses in the analog past while preventing consumers from enjoying more competition and the lower prices it brings.

Of course, President Trump’s strategy for U.S. leadership in AI recognizes the huge downsides for these state-level proposals. Which is why his recent Executive Order requires the Department of Justice to challenge these kinds of misguided state laws in court.

The good news? We can both avoid litigation from Team Trump and harm caused by bad policies.

First, let’s rely on existing laws to address concerns with privacy, discrimination, or kid’s safety. And second, let’s remove barriers to innovation that can help with everything from identifying cancer to watering crops.

Nebraska’s lawmakers can show what true leadership on AI looks like. And it starts with rejecting the misguided policies making their way through Lincoln.

Andy Reuss is a former U.S. Senate technology policy advisor, U.S. Department of Justice spokesman, and White House speechwriter. He runs The Penn Ave Group, a communications consulting firm based in Elkhorn, with his wife.

(Photo courtesy of Andy Reuss)