Meanwhile, regulatory agencies are continuing to investigate the potential harms of forever chemicals in our environment.
These are among the biggest tech and environmental policy issues to watch for in the coming year.
AI
State lawmakers are concerned that AI is a powerful, still-evolving technology that could be used in harmful ways, whether intentionally or not. Some lawmakers fear AI facilitating cyber attacks on critical infrastructure or AI systems making discriminatory hiring decisions. But detractors worry that too much regulation will limit innovation or discourage certain companies from choosing their states.
Many states have created task forces or passed narrow, targeted legislation, such as tackling political or non-consensual sexual deepfakes. But momentum is building for larger, more comprehensive state policies.
California attempted an AI safety-focused bill that its governor vetoed, while Colorado passed an AI policy focused on discrimination. Most state AI regulation this year is likely to adopt the latter’s anti-discrimination focus, predicts Adam Thierer, resident senior fellow with the technology and innovation team at the R Street Institute, a center-right think tank.
At the federal level, President-elect Trump has promised to repeal President Biden’s executive order on AI and not replace it with policies of his own. This could spur states, especially Democratic-led ones, to pass laws to fill the gap, says Scott Babwah Brennen, director of New York University’s Center on Technology Policy.
This could easily lead to a patchwork of policies, although one group may help bring about a greater level of consensus among state legislators. Members of the Multistate AI Policymaker Working Group share ideas, learn together about the technology and may settle on common definitions and frameworks, while tailoring any final laws to suit their individual states. The working group membership includes lawmakers from Colorado and several other states considering similar policies, including Texas and Connecticut. “You don't have to have every state pass these laws for them to have enormous, sweeping effect,” Thierer says. “As soon as you get a half-dozen or more states passing laws like this, it becomes a quasi-national standard.”
Vermont and California are also likely to consider Colorado-style measures, says Eric Null, co-director of the privacy and data project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a digital rights nonprofit. Meanwhile, Colorado legislators are actively considering possible changes to its law before it goes into effect in 2026. — Jule Pattison-Gordon
PFAS
PFAS are a group of chemicals used in a wide range of products, valued for their ability to make them stain- or waterproof. Associations between exposure to them and serious diseases are strong enough to prompt bans and restrictions in multiple countries.
A big question for the coming year is what the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will do about standards for PFAS in drinking water finalized in 2024. Under these rules, states have two years to create regulations that will keep levels at or below federal standards, followed by monitoring and enforceable compliance. They have access to $1 billion in federal funds to help them implement testing and treatment.
However, during the previous Trump administration, the EPA rolled back more than 100 regulations, almost half of which related to air, water and toxic substances. Shelley Moore Capito, the incoming chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, questioned the validity of the scientific process by which PFAS standards were set. Lawsuits have been filed on behalf of chemical companies and water utilities questioning EPA science and the scope of its authority. States could see legal challenges from the federal government over standards for water or products that are more restrictive than those set by the federal government.
But state officials are continuing to move ahead. Attorneys general in 30 states and the District of Columbia have filed lawsuits against PFAS manufacturers seeking redress for contamination of water and natural resources. In 2024, 16 states adopted new measures regarding PFAS. Most banned the manufacture and sale of items containing the chemicals, including items ranging from apparel, cosmetics and cookware to firefighting foam, artificial turf and menstrual products. They set aside funds for remediation, cleanup and testing and are expected to continue this work this year.
Hundreds of PFAS bills have already been introduced in 30 states, many with aims similar to those already enacted. A Texas bill would create criminal penalties for the sale of fertilizer products that contain PFAS above prescribed limits; cattle farmers there claim PFAS contamination is killing their livestock. Maine wants to require health insurance providers to cover blood tests for PFAS. — Carl Smith
Social Media
There’s bipartisan support for children’s online safety laws. Still, many policies have faced both ideological and legal pushback. Legal challengers complain that age-based access restrictions conflict with free speech rights, while age verification requirements can prevent adults from remaining anonymous on the platforms. California’s requirement that platforms prevent children from seeing “harmful” content was criticized as government censorship.
Even so, momentum toward regulation is strong. “There’s a ton happening on the legal side and states don’t care — they’re just moving ahead,” says Scott Babwah Brennen, director of New York University’s Center on Technology Policy. Even as courts blocked parts of California’s policy, Maryland moved forward with a related policy.
Social media is a big part of children’s lives, but government officials fear it can lead to depression, sleep disruption and cyber bullying, as well as distracting students during the school day. State lawmakers have tried various strategies for tackling these concerns. States might require platforms to block youth from creating accounts, demand parental consent, limit use of children’s personal data, disable addictive design features on youth accounts or take other actions to avoid presenting “harmful” content to minors. Some policies require platforms to verify users’ ages so they can identify youth accounts.
But social media can be helpful. It’s a lifeline for youth who need information or support for matters they cannot discuss with their parents, such as children suffering abuse at home or LGBTQ youth with unaccepting parents, says Jennifer Huddleston, senior fellow in technology policy at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
Legislators are likely to watch how the Supreme Court rules on Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, which is scheduled for oral arguments on Jan. 15. The case challenges a Texas law requiring social media platforms and other websites that host a significant amount of “sexual material harmful to minors” to implement age verification and display warnings.
A new strategy is also gaining steam: banning devices. Louisiana prohibited students using cellphones during school days, while Minnesota and Ohio required school districts to create local policies. In December, the federal Department of Education called on all states, as well as elementary, middle and high schools or school districts, to craft and adopt policies on acceptable cellphone use in school. — Jule Pattison-Gordon
