June 2025 US Tech Policy Roundup

Rachel Lau and J.J. Tolentino work with leading public interest foundations and nonprofits on technology policy issues at Freedman Consulting, LLC. Ben Lennett is the managing editor of Tech Policy Press.

As Congress rushed to get President Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ passed, AI policy was once again in the spotlight. In June, Congress continued to debate a sweeping federal moratorium on state and local AI laws, first introduced in the House’s budget bill, a revised version moved forward in the Senate. Backed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R–TX), it tied the moratorium to funding for the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program, with critics concerned that it effectively required states to choose between AI oversight and access to federal broadband dollars. The measure initially cleared key Senate hurdles despite backlash from civil rights groups, state lawmakers, and even Republican governors who argued that it threatened states’ ability to oversee AI systems. However, it was later removed during a late-night debate on the larger budget bill.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration pressed ahead with major changes to federal cybersecurity policy. A new executive order rolled back parts of the Biden and Obama-era cybersecurity frameworks, and the White House also proposed deep cuts to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). However, Congress has so far pushed for smaller reductions. Elsewhere in the federal government, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) gained a new Republican majority with the confirmation of Olivia Trusty.

The Supreme Court added to a busy month for tech policy by issuing major rulings. In Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the Court upheld Texas’s law requiring age verification for adult websites, backing the state’s power to limit minors’ access to sexual content online despite First Amendment concerns. In FCC v. Consumers’ Research, the Court preserved the FCC’s Universal Service Fund, rejecting arguments that it violated the nondelegation doctrine.

Read on to learn more about June developments in US tech policy.

The Supreme Court issues major rulings on age-verification and the Universal Service Fund

Summary

This month, the US Supreme Court delivered rulings in two important cases, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton and Federal Communications Commission et al. v. Consumers’ Research, that involved crucial aspects of governmental authority and constitutional limitations concerning online content. In the more consequential of the two, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the court reviewed the constitutionality of Texas House Bill 1181 (H.B. 1181), a law requiring age verification for adult websites distributing “sexual material harmful to minors.” The Free Speech Coalition, representing the adult entertainment industry, sued to block the law, arguing it imposed “invasive and burdensome” requirements and violated the First Amendment.

A federal judge initially granted an injunction, but the Fifth Circuit later upheld the age verification law, reversing the injunction. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state of Texas, determining the age-verification law was constitutional under the First Amendment. The majority opinion, delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, applied intermediate scrutiny, holding that the law "only incidentally burdens the protected speech of adults" and "advances important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of free speech." It provided that the power to require age verification is within a state's authority to prevent children from accessing sexual content. Justice Elena Kagan, in dissent, argued that strict scrutiny should have been applied, requiring the state to demonstrate the law was the least restrictive means to achieve its objective.

Free speech groups were opposed to the decision. “The Supreme Court has departed from decades of settled precedents that ensured that sweeping laws purportedly for the benefit of minors do not limit adults’ access to First Amendment-protected materials,” said Cecillia Wang, of the American Civil Liberties Union in a statement. In contrast, parents’ groups were supportive of the decision. "In ruling that states may require age assurance on pornographic websites, the Court has made clear what most families already know — that some online spaces are simply not appropriate for kids — and that states can take reasonable steps to minimize kids' exposure to explicit material,” offered Common Sense Media. The decision, though, could also have significant implications for the broader debate surrounding children’s safety on social media. Many of those measures have faced legal setbacks, with lower courts finding that such measures infringe on free speech; however, courts may now allow more of them to move forward after the Supreme Court’s ruling.

In Federal Communications Commission et al. v. Consumers’ Research, the Supreme Court addressed whether the FCC’s Universal-Service Fund violated the nondelegation doctrine and was therefore unconstitutional. The FCC requires telecommunications carriers to contribute to the fund, which subsidizes communications services for underserved populations like low-income consumers and those in rural areas, as well as schools, libraries, and rural hospitals. The Fifth Circuit had ruled the program was unconstitutional, questioning both Congress's delegation to the FCC and the FCC's subdelegation to the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). The Supreme Court reversed this decision, with the majority opinion, delivered by Justice Elena Kagan, finding that Congress directed the FCC to collect contributions "sufficient" to support the clearly defined universal-service programs. The Court also affirmed the FCC's subdelegation to USAC, stating that USAC functions "subordinately to" the Commission, which retains final decision-making authority.

What We’re Reading

• Ben Lennett and Cristiano Lima-Strong, “Supreme Court Ruling Shifts Ground on Online Age Verification and Free Speech,” Tech Policy Press.
• Jasmine Mithani, “Supreme Court clears the way for increased age verification for porn sites,” The 19th.

The AI moratorium progressed in the Senate, but later removed from budget bill

Summary

In last month’s roundup, we reported on a provision buried deep within the House-passed budget bill, known as the "Big Beautiful Bill" (H.R. 1), that would enact a 10-year moratorium on state and local laws regulating artificial intelligence. The Senate Commerce Committee released a revised version of the moratorium in early June. This version would require states to abide by the 10-year prohibition on AI regulation if they receive funding from the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program (BEAD).

By tying it to BEAD, Senate Republicans sought to ensure the measure would survive review by the Senate Parliamentarian under the Byrd Rule, which limits members from including items in reconciliation bills that are extraneous to implementing the budget. The Parliamentarian allowed the measure to proceed after the author of the measure, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), amended the language to seemingly limit the application of the moratorium to states only if they received funding from an additional $500 million allocation to the BEAD program to support AI deployment.

However, Senate Democrats and others challenged the Parliamentarians' decision, arguing the measure’s language would allow the Commerce Department to apply the moratorium requirement to the full $42.5 billion already appropriated to the BEAD program. Though the bulk of those funds had already been obligated to states, they had yet to receive final funding approvals from the Commerce Department to support broadband deployment projects and were already being asked by the agency to restructure their plans. As Stephanie Weiner, the former Chief Counsel at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), wrote for Tech Policy Press, the measure “requires States to certify compliance with the AI moratorium under the threat of NTIA stripping them of BEAD funding” and if “a State fails to so certify, NTIA has the authority to de-obligate the State’s BEAD funding.”

Meanwhile, opposition to the measure grew. Civil rights groups and other civil society organizations released letters strongly opposing the measure. State leaders also weighed in against the moratorium, including an open letter signed by 260 state legislators and another letter from seventeen Republican governors asking congressional leadership to “strip” the provision from the reconciliation bill.

In response to Senate Democrats' concerns, the Parliamentarian reviewed the measure a second time late last week, allowing the provision to move forward again. A press release from Ted Cruz’s office applauded the decision and included a summary of the amended provision that stated, “If - and only if - a state voluntarily chooses to receive a portion of this new $500 million federal investment to deploy AI,” will it need to comply with the AI moratorium, rebranded now as a “temporary pause.”

Then, in another late breaking change over the weekend, the measure was further amended to reduce the length of moratorium to five years and exclude certain categories of regulations. Despite these changes, ranking member on the Senate Commerce Committee Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) argued on Monday that the amendment, "allows Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick to force states to take the $500 million as part of a new allocation of BEAD funds... versus allowing states to apply voluntarily." Early Tuesday morning, the Senate voted 99-1 to pass an amendment put forward by Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Maria Cantwell (R-WA) removing the proposed 10-year moratorium from the budget bill.

What We’re Reading

• Justin Hendrix, "US Senate Drops Proposed Moratorium on State AI Laws in Budget Vote," Tech Policy Press.
• Stephanie Weiner, “Senate May Force States to Choose Between AI Oversight and Universal Broadband,” Tech Policy Press.
• David Brody, “The AI Moratorium Could Gut State Tax Revenues and Give Fraudsters a Pass,” Tech Policy Press.
• Justin Hendrix, “Proposed Federal Moratorium on State AI Laws Clears Hurdle in US Senate,” Tech Policy Press.
• Ariana Aboulafia and Travis Hall, “The Proposed AI Moratorium Will Harm People with Disabilities. Here’s How,” Tech Policy Press.
• Kate Brennan, Amba Kak, and Sarah Myers West, “The Storm Clouds Looming Past the State Moratorium: Weak Regulation is as Bad as None,” Tech Policy Press.
• Cristiano Lima‑Strong, “The State AI Laws Likeliest To Be Blocked by a Moratorium,” Tech Policy Press.

Trump Administration amends Biden and Obama-era cybersecurity policy, reduces CISA’s budget

Summary

This month, the Trump Administration took several steps toward its cybersecurity policy goals, which included issuing an executive order rolling back Biden and Obama-era policies and reducing the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s (CISA) proposed operating budget. Among the modifications to Obama-era policies included limiting the ability to sanction individuals responsible for cyberattacks on US infrastructure to only "foreign malicious actors” and specifying that sanctions “do not apply to election-related activities.”

The order also reversed Biden-era policies expanding the federal digital identity initiatives. Rather, Trump’s order dismissed digital ID initiatives, warning that such efforts could “increase the risk of fraud and improper access to benefits by undocumented immigrants.” Trump’s order also encouraged technical measures to strengthen US cybersecurity, including implementing post-quantum cryptography and directing NIST to collaborate with industry to develop guidance on the implementation of secure software development practices.

Cybersecurity experts expressed concern that the EO would undermine US cybersecurity, but particularly criticized provisions related to revoking digital ID mandates. Mark Montgomery, senior director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation, criticized the EO for “prioritizing questionable immigration benefits over proven cybersecurity benefits.” Jeremy Grant, coordinator of the Better Identity Coalition, released a statement expressing his disappointment in the Trump administration’s repeal of digital ID initiatives, stating that the effort had “strong bipartisan support and was praised by cybersecurity and fraud experts.”

Additionally, President Trump proposed significant cuts to the CISA workforce in his 2026 budget proposal, aiming to reduce the agency’s budget by nearly $500 million and eliminating over 1,000 positions. The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security advanced a 2026 funding bill that would reduce CISA’s operating budget by $135 million, a fraction of Trump’s proposed cuts.

Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV) acknowledged in a statement that CISA’s budget cuts may have resulted from the agency straying “from the authority given to it by Congress,” and that the cuts “responsibly trimmed that agency’s budget.” Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) pushed back on the proposed bill, arguing that it “weakens our national security, and leaves Americans vulnerable to attacks from our adversaries by sharply cutting cyber and infrastructure security.” Similarly, Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-IL) criticized the bill, stating that the “only people who benefit from this bill’s failure to invest here are cybercriminals in China, Russia, and around the world who will now find it easier to attack Americans.” On June 24, the House Appropriations Committee approved the CISA budget cuts within the Homeland Security Appropriations Act by a vote of 36-27.

What We’re Reading

• Sam Sabin, “Trump quietly throws out Biden’s cyber policies,” Axios.
• Townsend Bourne and Jonathan Meyer, “Trump’s New Cybersecurity Executive Order: What Contractors Need to Know,” National Law Review.

Tech TidBits & Bytes

Tech TidBits & Bytes aims to provide short updates on tech policy happenings across the executive branch and agencies, Congress, civil society, industry, and courts.

In the executive branch and agencies:

• FTC Commissioner Bedoya officially resigned his post in a letter to the White House, months after Trump removed him and fellow Democratic Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause in March of this year
• Olivia Trusty was confirmed to the FCC by the Senate 53-45, giving the Republicans a 2-1 majority on the commission. Multiple civil society organizations, including Free Press, The Benton Institute for Broadband and Society, and The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, opposed her confirmation, arguing that a Republican majority on the FCC would allow the body to advance Trump’s agenda. Trusty was sworn in by Chairman Brendan Carr on June 23.
• Trump signed another executive order extending the deadline for TikTok to be sold to an American parent company. There have been no legal challenges to the multiple extensions, despite the arrangement having no clear legal basis.
• The Department of Defense awarded a one-year, $200 million contract to OpenAI for their AI tools, six months after OpenAI announced their partnership with Andurail for “national security” deployment of AI systems.
• Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was found to be using a smartphone app that utilizes the mobile phone camera and facial recognition technology to identify people in public. Civil liberties groups opposed the use of the tool, arguing that facial recognition tools remain unreliable and that the technology’s use could lead to wrongful arrests.

In Congress:

• Sens. Booker (D-NJ), Padilla (D-C), Welch (D-CT), and Schiff (D-CA) sent a letter to Meta executives expressing concern about Meta’s AI chatbots posing as licensed therapists and providing faked credentials to users.

In civil society:

• The Midas Project and The Tech Oversight Project published The OpenAI Files, a repository of governance, leadership, and organizational concerns related to OpenAI. The investigation focuses on four areas: restructuring, CEO integrity, transparency and safety, and conflicts of interest.
• The American Security Project published a report finding that LLMs in the United States utilize talking points by the Chinese Communist Party in both Chinese and English when prompted on certain topics, such as the Tiananmen Square massacre and COVID-19.
• PowerSwitch Action and Gig Workers Rising co-authored a report on the impact of Uber’s algorithmic pricing on drivers, finding that “seven in ten drivers report experiences that suggest Uber’s AI manipulates driver pay in ways that push drivers to accept lower fares or keep drivers on the road for longer.”
• Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and Electronic Frontier Foundation found that hundreds of data brokers are failing to register with state consumer protection agencies. In an examination of companies that registered in at least one state, it found that many did not register in other states, demonstrating the potential incompleteness of state data broker registries.

In industry:

• Meta acquired Scale AI by paying $14.8 billion for a 49 percent stake in the company. The move drew some scrutiny from lawmakers concerned about potential antitrust violations and market effects.

Legislation Updates

The following bills made progress across the House and Senate in June:

• Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act – S. 836. Introduced by Sen. Edward J. Markey (D‑MA), the bill advanced through the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
• STOP CSAM Act of 2025 – S. 1829. Introduced by Sen. Josh Hawley (R‑MO), the bill advanced through the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
• Romance Scam Prevention Act – H.R. 2481. Introduced by Rep. Chris Pappas (D‑NH), the bill passed the House by voice vote.
• Consumer Safety Technology Act – H.R. 1770. Introduced by Rep. Darren Soto (D‑FL), the bill advanced through the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
• Deploying American Blockchains Act of 2025 – H.R. 1664. Introduced by Rep. Kat Cammack (R‑FL), the bill passed the House by voice vote.
• Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act) – S.1582. Introduced by Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN), the bill passed the Senate.
• ADS for Mental Health Services Act – S. 414. Introduced by Sen. Dan Sullivan (R‑AK), the bill advanced through the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

The following bills were introduced across the House and Senate in June:

• Responsible Innovation and Safe Expertise Act of 2025 (RISE Act) – S. 2081. Introduced by Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R‑WY) on June 12, 2025, the bill would “establish immunity from civil liability for certain artificial intelligence developers, and for other purposes.”
• A bill to establish the Task Force on Artificial Intelligence… – S. 2117. Introduced by Sen. Jon Husted (R‑OH), the bill would “establish the Task Force on Artificial Intelligence in the Financial Services Sector to report to Congress on issues related to artificial intelligence in the financial services sector, and for other purposes.”
• UNPLUGGED Schools Grant Act of 2025 – H.R. 4005. Introduced by Rep. Eugene Simon Vindman (D‑VA), the bill would “establish a grant program to be known as the ‘Utilize No Phones in Learning to Unleash Growth in Grades and Educate Distraction-free Schools Grant Program’ or the ‘UNPLUGGED Schools Grant Program.’”
• NTIA Policy and Cybersecurity Coordination Act – S. 2049. Introduced by Sen. John Hickenlooper (D‑CO), the bill would “amend the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act to establish the Office of Policy Development and Cybersecurity, and for other purposes.”
• My Body, My Data Act of 2025 – S. 2029. Introduced by Sen. Mazie Hirono (D‑HI) on June 11, 2025, the bill aims “to protect the privacy of personal reproductive or sexual health information, and for other purposes.”
• Transparency in Enforcement, Restricting, and Terminations (TERMS) Act – S. 2010. Introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz (R–TX), the bill would “require online service providers to disclose their acceptable use policies, provide users with written notice before the termination of a user’s account, and publish an annual report detailing actions taken to enforce their acceptable use policies, and for other purposes.”

We welcome feedback on how this roundup could be most helpful in your work – please contact contributions@techpolicy.press with your thoughts.