The news
Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat, is forming a bipartisan group of governors to develop a framework for regulating artificial intelligence, arguing that states must fill the gap left by federal inaction, according to an Associated Press report published October 1, 2026.
Moore chairs the National Governors Association (NGA) this year. He said Indiana Gov. Mike Braun, a Republican and the NGA's co-chair, will partner with him on the framework, and that governors from both parties plan to take part, according to the AP. Neither the AP nor PYMNTS, which also covered the plan, described what the framework would contain.
Moore told the AP that the federal government has a unique leadership role to play, but that in its absence governors cannot just sit on their hands. He also criticized a meeting President Donald Trump held with AI executives at the White House, asking who in the room had advocated for more transparency or regulatory guardrails, according to PYMNTS.
The AP reported that Trump and tech leaders signed a voluntary accord at that meeting and that Trump has dismissed fears about AI as a hoax while prioritizing competition with China. Congress left Washington until after the November midterm elections without passing AI legislation, according to the AP.
States have already been acting on their own. Maryland, California, Illinois, Oregon and Virginia have issued executive orders or taken other steps to set AI standards, the AP reported, and Republican governors Spencer Cox of Utah and Greg Abbott of Texas have cracked down on data center development. Moore signed an AI executive order in 2024 but acknowledged parts of it are now antiquated, according to the AP.
PYMNTS also reported that Sens. Josh Hawley and Chris Murphy plan to introduce legislation that would hold AI agent operators and developers criminally and civilly liable when their models hack into other systems or networks.
The numbers
- States cited by AP for AI orders or standards
- 5 (Maryland, California, Illinois, Oregon, Virginia)
- Year of Moore's earlier AI executive order
- 2024
Why CEOs should care
For companies selling or deploying AI across the US, a framework coordinated through the NGA could become the closest thing to national rules in the near term. One shared model adopted by many states would be easier to comply with than dozens of different laws. General counsel and compliance chiefs should track the group's work now and map where their products would fall under the orders and standards already in place in Maryland, California, Illinois, Oregon and Virginia.
For boards, the bipartisan structure is the key signal. A Democrat-Republican partnership makes it more likely that the framework spreads to states with different politics, rather than staying a blue-state project. Directors should ask management whether the company has a single AI governance policy that could meet the strictest state standard.
For data center developers and the companies that lease capacity from them, the AP's note that Utah and Texas have cracked down on data center development shows that state action is not limited to model safety. Energy and siting rules can affect AI costs as much as any model law.
The bigger picture
AI policy in the US has split between a federal approach favoring voluntary commitments and states that want binding rules. Without action from Congress, states have filled the gap with executive orders and their own laws, creating a patchwork for companies that operate nationally. A coordinated governors' framework would not end that patchwork, but it could narrow it if many states adopt similar language.
What’s next
Watch for the list of governors who join, the timeline for a draft framework, and whether Congress takes up AI legislation, including the liability bill PYMNTS reported Sens. Hawley and Murphy plan to introduce, after the midterms.
What “Fact-checked” means
Fact-checking means testing a story’s facts against the evidence before it is published. This story went through at least two separate checks before this version was published.
- What we checked
- Its names, figures, dates, job titles, quotes and who said what were checked against the story’s sources, including its main source where it could be opened. The headline was checked for accuracy and overstatement.
- How
- A first check reviewed the whole story. If it passed, a second, skeptical check went back to the sources to look for mistakes in the most important facts. If a check flagged the story, it was edited to fix the problems found, and a separate re-check then reviewed the whole story again.
- Who
- The checks are made by our newsroom, as steps kept separate from the writing, under rules set by our editor, Hussein Mukhtar. A story the checks still flag is held for the editor, who decides whether it is fixed, published or dropped.
- If something is wrong
- “Fact-checked” does not mean error-free. If a material error is found after publication, we correct the story and add a note saying what changed. Report an error
