Jackson Jambalaya

If you’ve ever watched a road crew resurface a state highway in Mississippi on a scorching summer day, you know there’s a difference between laying a steady bed of asphalt and dumping gravel that rattles the chassis. That’s about where we are with artificial intelligence. States are laying down rules — some smooth, some rough — and the question for 2026 is whether a patchwork will keep traffic moving or throw a wrench into the engine of American innovation.

By late 2025, virtually every state legislature in the country had taken a swing at AI—introducing over a thousand bills and enacting scores of new laws from deepfake crackdowns to transparency requirements. National trackers show that 38 states adopted around 100 measures in 2025 alone, with most focusing on consumer protection, government use, or specific risks such as synthetic media. That’s real momentum — but it’s also real fragmentation.

In Mississippi alone, 16 AI-regulating bills were introduced. Of those, 14 failed and two were enacted into law. Business voices warn that a “50-state” thicket will slow startups and shift dollars from engineers to compliance lawyers. Analysts at the U.S. Chamber argue that copying Colorado’s high-impact AI model nationwide could trim productivity and jobs; industry groups say a single federal framework would be cheaper and more transparent. Whether you love or loathe Big Tech, it’s hard to deny that conflicting red lights at every state line make for a sluggish convoy.

Meanwhile, Washington has sent mixed signals. The White House’s America’s AI Action Plan leans pro-innovation — calling to “remove red tape” and accelerate AI infrastructure — while agencies like the FTC and GAO sketch governance duties and oversight councils for federal AI use.

In November, the Trump administration launched the “Genesis Mission,” a Manhattan Project-style push to harness federal supercomputers and datasets for AI-accelerated discovery. That’s a big bet on national coordination — even as talk of sweeping federal preemption of state AI laws remains politically radioactive.

Where does Mississippi fit? This fall, state leaders brought the Artificial Intelligence Legislative Task Force to Mississippi State University — walking through the MSU Center for Advanced Vehicular Systems labs, looking at MSU’s supercomputing capabilities, and hearing how the state is uniquely positioned with power and space to build next-generation AI infrastructure.

The Legislature also created the AIR Task Force (SB 2426), which was charged with studying risks and opportunities and reporting annually through 2027. In plain English: Mississippi wants the benefits of AI—from workforce to healthcare—without sacrificing safety, privacy, or common sense.

That’s the correct posture. But if every state writes its own dictionary, companies will read 50 different languages. HR teams already face divergent obligations—from New York City’s hiring rules to Texas and Illinois statutes taking effect in 2026—creating headaches for multistate employers. In small towns and big cities alike, this is how innovation stalls: not in the lab, but in the compliance queue.

Still, there’s a real case for state action. Many of the 2025 laws didn’t burden developers at all —they criminalized deepfake abuse, mandated disclosures, or guided government use. In an election year, waiting for a comprehensive federal bill may feel like waiting for a train that never reaches the depot. States act because constituents demand protection now.

A targeted federal statute can preempt direct conflicts while preserving room for measured state innovation. That’s smarter than trying to bulldoze 50 capitols; it avoids the balkanized map without trampling federalism. The AIR Task Force has the mandate and, at MSU, the machinery to evaluate what works. Focus on pragmatic guardrails: inventory state AI use, publish agency model registries, adopt risk frameworks, and require human-in-the-loop oversight for consequential decisions in state services.

Mississippi can help local companies by mapping crosswalks showing how state or federal practices align with domestic and European expectations — so our innovators aren’t blindsided at the port.

If Congress can lay a consistent, light-touch foundation — and Mississippi keeps building pragmatic guardrails rather than a mountain of mandates — we’ll pave the way for responsible AI without bogging down a promising industry in regulatory gravel. That’s the difference between leading the parade and sweeping up after it.

Sid Salter is a syndicated columnist. Contact him at sidsalter@sidsalter.com.