How Federal Deregulation Isn't Making AI Compliance Easier—Just Harder To Navigate

David Talby, PhD, MBA, CEO at John Snow Labs. Solving real-world problems in healthcare, life sciences and related fields with AI.

​In the US, conversations about AI regulation in 2026 have focused largely on deregulation. The White House has challenged state-level restrictions, federal agencies have withdrawn AI guidance and policymakers have proposed reducing certain technology requirements. But for companies actually deploying AI, that’s only part of the story.

The library of global AI-related laws, regulations, standards and frameworks grew from around 250 instruments in March to 619 in September. More than 200 come from US states alone. For technology leaders, it’s not about whether Washington is regulating more or less. It’s what rules apply to the AI systems we operate, and how we can prove those systems comply.

Federal deregulation has limits.

Federal policy has shifted. In December 2025, Executive Order 14365 directed the Justice Department to challenge state AI laws the administration considers inconsistent with federal policy. Federal agencies have also withdrawn guidance concerning AI in areas such as employment and credit. But withdrawing guidance doesn’t repeal the underlying statutes, and state legislatures continue to act.

These state laws cover issues ranging from deepfakes and election advertising to privacy, healthcare, employment and automated decision-making. The intent behind them is positive. But the result is an increasingly fragmented compliance environment.

State rules become de facto national rules.

​For companies operating nationwide, a state law rarely stays neatly contained within the state’s borders. Texas and California, for example, both brought major AI legislation into effect in 2026. Colorado replaced its original AI Act with a new automated decision-making law. Several states have also enacted requirements governing conversational AI.