Rep. Jonathan Warrey, R-Casselton, is the chair of the new legislative committee focused on artificial intelligence and data centers. The committee held its first meeting on July 15, 2026. (Photo by Jacob Orledge/North Dakota Monitor)
BISMARCK (North Dakota Monitor) — A new legislative committee is studying how other states approach regulating artificial intelligence and is considering what policy steps may be necessary in North Dakota ahead of next year’s legislative session.
Rep. Jonathan Warrey, R-Casselton, is chairing the committee and said the ultimate goal is to produce recommendations that are “practical, balanced, and focused on the long-term interests of the people of North Dakota.”
“We want to ensure that we take a North Dakota-first approach, one where innovation can thrive,” Warrey said. “But we’ve got to protect our citizens within reason and maintain public trust.”
The committee is not considering any specific legislation at this time. But throughout the presentations during the committee’s first meeting Wednesday, members expressed an interest in more information regarding requiring more transparency of AI use, how government oversight is being enacted elsewhere, AI’s role in education and attempts to safeguard children.
Most states have passed legislation regulating AI in one form or another. The majority of it has been targeted in nature, according to a presentation by William Clark of the National Conference of State Legislatures.
“Instead of focusing on more comprehensive approaches that apply to all developers and all employers, really focusing on specific industries or specific types of applications, like chatbots or particular environmental regulations or particular education uses,” Clark said.
Some of the most common subjects of legislation include AI use in healthcare and education, required disclosures of AI use for transparency and restrictions on deep-fakes images, Clark said.
Clark said multiple states are restricting the use of deep fakes for sexually explicit content, especially relating to child sexual abuse materials, amending campaign laws to require disclosure of AI use in ads and prohibiting the use of those ads too close to an election, and protecting an individual’s digital likeness.
Some states have gone a step further and enacted what the NCSL considers comprehensive regulation of how artificial intelligence is used, including:
- Utah: Passed a law in 2024 that established liability for use of AI if it violates consumer protection laws and isn’t disclosed.
- Texas: In 2025, began requiring the disclosure of AI use to consumers, prohibited certain uses of AI and invested the Attorney General’s Office with authority to enforce compliance.
- California: In 2025, began requiring AI developers to submit risk assessments for significant harm, established whistleblower protections and created a system to report AI safety incidents.
- Illinois: Passed the Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act earlier this year. The law is similar to California’s and goes a step further by requiring annual third party audits of AI developers.
- Colorado: In 2026, repealed a 2024 law and replaced it with an attempt to address concerns about using AI to automate consequential decisions using an individual’s personal data.
“If one of these automated decision-making models was used for maybe denying a health claim, and so a person under this bill has the right to review the data that was used in that decision, provide additional corrections if they believe there was some sort of erroneous data, and if there was,” Clark said of Colorado’s law. “Then to have that decision reviewed once again.”
Rep. Todd Porter, a Republican from Mandan, questioned whether some of the laws would hold up in court.
“When I look through the list, it seems like there’s a lot of fences that are being put up that are unenforceable fences,” Porter said.
North Dakota has passed its own legislation in recent years. One bill expanded the state’s child pornography law to include images created by artificial intelligence. Another required a disclaimer on any political communication or political advertisement created, entirely or in part, with artificial intelligence.
All of these state-level regulations could potentially be pre-empted by the federal government if Congress takes action.
Congress has or will consider multiple frameworks of AI safety legislation, said Barrie Tabin, senior legislative director for NCSL. Those include attempts to implement protections for children and regulations on AI development. None of the proposals have been passed by both chambers of Congress yet.
“There is a lot of discussion. But nothing moving rapidly through both the House and the Senate,” Tabin said.
One of the roadblocks to some of the child safety legislation at the federal level has been industry pushback on First Amendment grounds, Tabin said. A congressional proposal to place the “duty of care,” or responsibility to ensure a platform avoids foreseeable harm to children, on the shoulders of AI developers, has been controversial even as the broader topic of child safety is bipartisan, Tabin said.
One member of the committee, Mark Hagerott, a former chancellor of the North Dakota University System who has expertise in AI, said it would be a “dangerous overreach” if the AI industry continued to push back against protections for children on First Amendment grounds.
“We protect our children down to the bread they eat, the milk they drink,” Hagerott said. “It just seems this is not going to sustain itself politically.”
Tabin said states also have to consider President Donald Trump’s executive orders. Those executive orders have called for the federal government to implement a single AI policy for the whole country, urges Congress to preempt conflicting state laws and emphasize the need to regulate with a light touch.
Tabin said the White House has emphasized “a very light touch, innovator-friendly approach to regulation,” but with mechanisms like age verification and parental control safeguards to protect children.
She said there is concern the federal government may hold back a state’s share of $250 billion in discretionary grant funding, such as the $20 billion in broadband access funding that has yet to be distributed, if the Trump administration feels a state’s AI regulation conflicts with the federal government’s approach.
Sen. Janne Myrdal, a Republican from Edinburg, called the threat of the federal government withholding that funding an “overreach,” and a violation of the part of the Bill of Rights that reserves powers for the state and the public which are not delegated to the federal government.
“It’s very frustrating to me that the 10th Amendment is being stomped on,” Myrdal said. “It’s quite disgusting.”
Tabin predicted any attempt to withhold discretionary funding from states would be met with a strong reaction by state attorneys general.
“I think there would probably be an upheaval, an uproar across the country in all states if they tried to withhold some of these other discretionary, unrelated funds because of what they deem to be an onerous AI law,” Tabin said.
The meeting room for a new legislative committee to study artificial intelligence and data centers was standing room only on July 15, 2026. More than 70 members of the public were in attendance. (Photo by Jacob Orledge/North Dakota Monitor)
Legislative Management Chair David Hogue, a Republican senator from Minot, initiated the committee’s creation. He said Wednesday the goal should not necessarily be to draft legislation but to study the subject before the session.
“Artificial intelligence is changing so fast it’s hard to keep up with it,” Hogue said Wednesday. “We need to know what other states and the federal government are doing.”
The next meeting of the Artificial Intelligence and Data Center Committee is scheduled for Aug. 13. The location has not been set.
Warrey said he expects the committee to meet five times in total, three times in Bismarck and two field trips to other communities.
The chairman also said the committee will accept written testimony. That typically is not the case for interim committees. The written submissions will be linked in the meeting minutes.
Written testimony can be submitted to edohm@ndlegis.gov. If the testimony is received more than a week after a committee meeting, it will be included in the minutes of the next meeting instead.
Comments