An Amazon Web Services data center is shown situated near single-family homes in Stone Ridge, Va., in 2024. As Americans grow increasingly frustrated over their electricity bills, states are trying to keep the nation’s growing number of data centers from causing higher energy costs for consumers. (Photo by Nathan Howard/Getty Images)

As Americans grow increasingly frustrated over their electricity bills, states are trying to keep the nation’s growing number of data centers from causing higher energy costs for consumers.

For years, many states competed aggressively to land data centers, sprawling campuses full of the computer servers that store and transmit the data behind apps and websites. But many officials are now scrutinizing how those power-hungry projects might affect the electric bills of households, small businesses and other industries.

Oregon last year became one of the first states to enact a law requiring utilities to charge data centers different electric prices than other industries because of how they drive up the cost of energy production and transmission.

“We are now making data centers pay a higher rate commensurate with the amount of energy they’re sucking out of the system,” said Oregon state Rep. Tom Andersen, a Democrat.

Republican and Democratic leaders in at least a dozen states have targeted data centers with separate, higher electric rates to protect other customers. States also are requiring long-term commitments and financial guarantees through collateral before greenlighting infrastructure investments for new data center projects. But lawmakers acknowledge that numerous factors affect energy prices, so targeting data center-specific costs can be complicated.

An increasingly digital world and the rise of energy-intensive artificial intelligence has led to major expansion of data centers: Consultant McKinsey & Company expects companies to spend nearly $7 trillion worldwide on data centers by 2030. But the industry is facing growing scrutiny, from neighbors who don’t want to live near the massive server farms and from residents worried about how data centers will affect their own swelling utility bills.

Delaware legislation that would charge data centers higher rates advanced out of committee last week. On Tuesday, a Florida state Senate committee approved a bill that would create new rate structures for data centers.

In Oklahoma, a Republican state senator has proposed a moratorium on new data centers until late 2029, allowing the state to study how data centers affect utility rates, the environment and property values.

Separate legislation from state Rep. Brad Boles will seek to protect other ratepayers from the costs of data centers. Boles, the Republican chair of the state Energy and Natural Resources Oversight Committee, said his in-the-works measure would ensure data centers pay their fair share.

Boles told Stateline that his constituents are increasingly worried about data centers, with a dozen potential major ones proposed across the state.

“We’re trying to ensure that those data centers pay for their own infrastructure and we don’t shift that cost or burden to everyday Oklahomans,” he said.

In Oregon, Andersen’s legislation created a new rate structure for data centers with long-term contracts and required regulators to separate the costs of those facilities from other ratepayers.

But consumer advocates have already accused the state’s largest utility of trying to skirt the new law by making residential customers pay part of the long-term cost of supplying large data centers in a pending rate case.

Andersen, a member of the state House Committee on Climate, Energy and Environment, said the new rate structure is unlikely to immediately lower consumer bills. Rather, it aims to curb future increases as data centers require more power generation and transmission.

“We’re not going to change the rates that are being currently paid by the ratepayers and the users of the electricity,” he said. “It’s just going to stop future raises.”

The data center boom

Rising utility bills continue to outpace inflation, sparking anger from consumers and more scrutiny from state regulators, governors and lawmakers.

The boom of data centers is frequently cited as a prime reason for rising electricity prices, as their operation requires more power generation, transmission and distribution upgrades. A Bloomberg News analysis in September found wholesale electricity costs as much as 267% more for a single month than it did five years ago in areas with significant data center activity.

Data center companies say they aren’t the only reason prices are rising.

“It’s inaccurate to draw a clear line between large load customers like data centers coming online and increases in prices. It’s just not that simple,” said Lucas Fykes, senior director of energy policy and regulatory counsel at the Data Center Coalition, a trade group representing data center owners and users, including Amazon, Meta and Visa.

He said many factors have contributed to higher electricity prices, including extreme weather events and the nation’s aging electric grid.

Fykes said his organization opposes rate structures that treat data centers differently from other large electric users such as industrial sites. The organization is working with regulators as states increasingly implement practices to ensure residents and small businesses aren’t on the hook for big energy investments if major projects including data centers don’t come to fruition.

Fykes said the country is likely just in the “beginning innings” of a longer ramp-up in technology and power needs.

“We are also in a global race to build out data centers, to support AI, to support cloud infrastructure,” he said. “It’s important to make sure that we maintain those assets here in the United States.”

That can pose competing interests for political leaders, including mayors, who have pushed hard to land investments from tech companies.

“We want to be leaders in AI, but we don’t want the infrastructure needed to support it,” said Rusty Paul, the mayor of Sandy Springs, Georgia, in the Atlanta metro area.

He was among several mayors addressing the issue of data centers at last month’s winter meeting of the United States Conference of Mayors in Washington, D.C. On a data center panel, Paul acknowledged the effect of Georgia’s tax incentives for data centers: “They’re just popping up everywhere,” he said.

But utilities and regulators are also making long overdue grid upgrades that aren’t tied to data centers, he said.

“The cost of electricity is going up for everybody — and it’s not all related to data centers,” he said.

A bipartisan push

The Georgia Public Service Commission last year created new rules that officials said would protect ratepayers from data center costs. In addition to covering costs of power consumed at their facilities, data centers would have to fund the costs incurred by upstream generation, transmission and distribution, the regulator said.

But lawmakers aren’t convinced those steps went far enough.

State Sen. Chuck Hufstetler, a Republican, is again pushing legislation that would solidify the regulator’s rules into law. His bill would prohibit utilities from passing along the fuel, generation or transmission costs of data centers to other customers.

He told Stateline that the regulator’s rules need to be codified into law so they can’t be weakened later.

Hufstetler said rising utility bills are among the biggest issues facing his constituents. High prices played a key role in November’s election, when Democrats flipped two seats on the state’s Public Service Commission board — the first time Democrats won statewide constitutional office in nearly two decades.

“I saw people with MAGA hats going into the election polling places that were saying, ‘I’m not voting for those guys that raised my rates,’” Hufstetler said, referring to the Republican incumbents who lost.

Hufstetler said the bill, which passed out of committee last year, has already gained major bipartisan support in the Senate, where it is sponsored by multiple Republicans and Democrats.

“This is very bipartisan,” he said. “We have all heard from our people around the state of Georgia.”

The Georgia Public Service Commission agrees in principle with the legislation, said agency spokesperson Tom Krause. But he said the regulator worries about losing flexibility if its rules are written into law.

“Not just this bill, but whenever the legislature codifies a rule that we put in place, we get a little nervous because it can tie our hands in special circumstances,” he said.

A complex challenge

As part of implementing a law enacted last year, Maryland’s utility regulator is weighing a new rate structure for data centers and other large load users.

Proposed regulations would require certain preapproval analysis for heavy power users, a separate rate tariff for data centers and collateral to ensure other ratepayers don’t end up paying for major investments if projects do not come to fruition.

Maryland’s Office of People’s Counsel, an independent agency representing residential utility users, said the proposed changes meet statutory requirements but could do more to protect consumers.

In a news release last month, Maryland People’s Counsel David S. Lapp said residents are already facing higher costs from data centers from outside the state.

“While we push for better federal rules to address those costs, Maryland has the power—and customers a clear need—to make sure data centers within Maryland take on every cost that they impose on residential customers,” Lapp said.

Democratic Gov. Wes Moore recently joined 12 other governors and the Trump administration in urging the regional grid operator, PJM Interconnection, to shield residents and businesses from the infrastructure costs from data centers.

Maryland state Del. Lorig Charkoudian, a Democrat, said the grid operator has for years failed residents in the 13 states plus the District of Columbia that it serves. By delaying renewable energy projects, she said, PJM has kept older, more expensive power plants online, driving up prices as data centers increase demand.

PJM’s board last month rolled out a new data center plan that it said would improve demand forecasting, accelerate the addition of new generation projects and give states a larger role.

Charkoudian said states and utilities struggle to determine just how much power is needed. Data center users shop around for sites, which can cause wildly inaccurate forecasts of just how much power a utility will need.

“It actually has a very concrete financial impact on ratepayers,” she told Stateline. “And so that’s why one of the things that really could make a difference for ratepayers is if we actually had an accurate count of how much we’re getting online.”

While some of those challenges lie outside the realm of state control, Charkoudian said there are things the state can do, including the new rate structure for larger users. She’s crafting a bill encouraging data centers to curtail their power usage during peak periods, such as hot days, when the electrical system is taxed by heavy usage of air conditioners, Maryland Matters reported.

Charkoudian said adding solar generation and storage are low-cost ways to respond quickly to demand. And states can avoid the need for more generation by doubling down on energy efficiency programs that lower demand and also consumer costs.

“The best time to fix this was five years ago,” she said. “The next best time is right this minute, because it’s only going to get worse.”

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira contributed to this story. Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

Washington, D.C., and 38 states have enacted some form of statewide restriction or requirement for districts to limit student phone use. Of those, 18 have bans for the entire day. (Photo by SDI Productions via Getty Images)

Wisconsin lawmakers are calling for the state to ban cell phones throughout the school day and to implement regulations on social media and other platforms in an effort to protect children from the negative consequences of internet and social media use.

The bills regulating cellphone and internet use are the result of a task force organized by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) last year. The group of lawmakers, which met four times, was tasked with examining the effects of social media on youth development, evaluating the benefits and drawbacks to children having unlimited, unsupervised access to the internet and assessing the risks and dangers of children being online.

Bell-to-bell cell phone ban

Following the lead of several other states, Wisconsin lawmakers are pushing for a “bell-to-bell” cell phone ban in schools, about six months before school districts in Wisconsin are required to implement the instructional cell phone ban in schools recently required by state law. 

Washington, D.C., and 38 states have enacted some form of statewide restriction or requirement for districts to limit student phone use. Of those, 18 have bans for the entire day. 

AB 948 would require policies banning cell phone use in school to prohibit them throughout the entire school day including during instructional time, recess, the time students travel between classes and the lunch period. This would need to be implemented by July 1, 2027, under the bill. 

Rep. Lindee Brill (R-Sheboygan Falls) told lawmakers on the Assembly Education committee that the bill is just one part of a “multifaceted approach” to addressing the question of protecting children online. 

“If schools can be a safe zone that this bill helps implement, that is a huge piece,” she said. 

Brill said that a student during one of the task force meetings said that he had many experiences on social media and “most of them were bad” and that social media “brings you down.”

Wisconsin recently enacted a statewide cell phone ban, signed into law by Gov. Tony Evers in October. But  2025 Wisconsin Act 42 only requires school districts to implement policies that ban cellphones during instructional times. These policies need to include exceptions for emergencies, for educational purposes and cases involving student health care, individualized education plans (IEPs) or 504 plans (learning environment accommodations).

Even prior to the recent state law, according to a Wisconsin Policy Forum report, most Wisconsin school districts already restricted student cellphone use, though policies and enforcement varied widely across the state.

However, Brill said the state should go further.

“School districts are right now considering adopting these policies independently and there’s a groundswell of parents calling for it,” Brill said.

Rep. Joel Kitchens (R-Sturgeon Bay), who led the first cellphone ban law, noted that he got a lot of pushback when he first proposed the idea because it was a “fairly new concept.” He said he would have liked to pass a bell-to-bell ban to begin with, but he didn’t think there was the political support necessary.

“Since that time, though, this issue has exploded across the country and Wisconsin is now on the weaker end of it,” Kitchens said, adding that New York, a Democratic-led state, and Louisiana, a Republican-led state, have the strictest bans in the country.

AB 948 would also explicitly allow school districts to use pouches or other storage devices for cellphones or ban having cellphones on school premises. 

Democratic lawmakers on the education committee questioned the approach as a  “one-size-fits-all” solution to the issue of cellphones, as well as the exclusion of the state’s private choice and independent charter schools, which receive taxpayers dollars, from the requirement.

“Why the one-size-fits-all nature of this?” Rep. Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) asked. He noted that there may be students who have a part-time job and need to stay in-touch with their employers during the school day and asked whether lawmakers would be open to allowing exceptions for phones during lunch if a school chooses.

“We did it for 200 years without cellphones before and I think we can do it again,” Kitchens said. “The more you understand the issue the more clear it becomes. You have to have a strict policy.”

Rep. Joe Sheehan (D-Sheboygan) said that the superintendent of the school district in the area he represents in the Assembly did not want the broader ban on cellphones. He also asked about the exclusion of the state’s voucher schools. He said if the schools don’t want to follow the regulations placed on schools getting taxpayer funding then “don’t take the money.” 

Brill said that parents are sending their children to voucher schools so they can get the education that fits their children best and that she doesn’t want there to be “punitive damages on private schools because they’re getting tax dollars when, in reality, it’s that child who’s getting the education.”

Kitchens said a bill that only includes public schools is all they can get done “politically” right now.

No one else testified on the bill.

Regulations on content, social media access

The Assembly Children and Families committee took up a set of bills that would regulate social media companies and platforms. 

AB 961 would require distributors of media, including print publications and digital platforms, to use prominent “explicit content” warning labels.

Rep. Joy Goeben (R-Hobart) said the bill would establish a “common-sense framework ensuring that material intended strictly for adults … is clearly identified before it is accessed.”

The bill defines “explicit content” as material “intended for an adult audience” that “lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” and that “depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way.”

Under the bill, the warning label would need to be on the front cover or first page or on the packaging for print publications and for digital platforms, the label would need to appear for at least 10 seconds or until a user acknowledges the warning.

The warning label would need to be similar to: “WARNING: This material contains explicit content that may be harmful or offensive. Viewer discretion is advised. Not intended for minors.”

“Ultimately, this bill is about consumer transparency, helps protect minors by ensuring explicit material clearly is labeled and responsibly presented,” Goeben said. 

Rep. Jill Billings (D-La Crosse) asked Goeben whether she would be open to an amendment to remove printed materials from the bill, citing concerns from book sellers. 

“If this got this signed, you betcha I would, but realistically most things that are sold, aren’t they sold, like, in a wrapper?” Goeben asked, adding that she didn’t think it would be fair to social media or internet stakeholders to exclude printed materials.

“I think we really need to think about applying equally to all the people who create disturbing content,” Goeben said. 

“Maybe take print media out of it because again… this isn’t like the emerging technology where parents are struggling with trying to address what their kids are seeing and how they’re putting parental controls on it. Print media is a bit of a different animal,” Billings said. 

AB 962 would require app developers and app stores to verify the age of users and, if they identified a minor’s account, to get parental consent before child users are able to download or purchase apps or make in-store purchases. Accounts belonging to a minor would have to be affiliated with an account owned by a parent.

Goeben said the bill would give parents tools they have been asking for. 

“Parents should never discover after the fact that an app that their child has used daily has become more invasive or more dangerous,” Goeben said. “This proposal is narrowly and carefully tailored… it does not ban apps or censor content or interfere with innovation… What it does do is establish clear and uniform rules so families are no longer forced to navigate a confusing patchwork of opaque policies… written by corporations.” 

The bill would also prohibit apps and app stores from enforcing a contract or terms of service against a minor unless there is parental consent. And it bars knowingly misrepresenting any information in a parental consent disclosure and sharing or disclosing any personal information collected when conducting age verification.

The bill includes a provision to allow a minor or parent of a minor harmed by a violation to bring civil action against an app store provider or developer. They could be awarded actual damages or $1,000 for each violation, whichever amount is greater, and punitive damages if the violation was egregious, as well as court costs and reasonable attorney fees.

AB 963 would impose a number of requirements related to underage users on social media platforms that bring in more than $1 billion in revenue per year. Social media platforms would need to estimate the age of users and whether they are minors. 

The requirements include setting the default privacy settings at the most private; not allowing for “addictive features” including infinite scrolling, a profile-based feed, push notifications, autoplay and displaying likes; and preventing profile-based, paid commercial advertising in a minor’s feed.

Platforms would also need to terminate an account if they have reason to believe the user is a minor without parental consent. If a parent requests the termination of a child’s account, it must be done within 14 days, and the means to terminate an account must be clear, simple, and easy to locate. 

The bill includes a provision to allow a private civil action by a parent or child aggrieved by a negligent, reckless or knowing violation for declaratory or injunctive relief and damages. If the violation was reckless or knowing, the parent or minor would be entitled to $10,000 or actual damages per violation.

Brittney and Luke Bird, the parents of Bradyn Bohn, the 15-year-old who killed himself after falling victim to sextortion, testified in favor of the bill. They have become prominent advocates for online safety and child protection in the wake of the death of their son. 

Luke Bird told lawmakers on the committee that the bills are “meaningful steps towards preventing further tragedies.” 

“Over the last 11 months, we’ve learned firsthand how inadequate current safeguards are when it comes to internet use. The dangers are real, they’re immediate, and they’re widespread and growing,” he said. “There’s an active case against Meta involving sextortion scams. Snapchat is facing cases tied to drug distribution. TikTok has been tied to dangerous online challenges…. As parents and as citizens we’re expected to trust that our children can safely navigate these digital spaces. We believe safeguards, accountability and stronger protections must be put in place. That begins with you, in here.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A masked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent knocks on a car window in Minnesota on Jan. 12, 2026. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats on Wednesday detailed the “common sense” changes they want to implement for federal immigration enforcement, saying reforms must be added to a funding package that needs to become law before the weekend to avoid a partial government shutdown. 

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said after a closed-door lunch that lawmakers in the conference are united on several policy restrictions.

They include:

• The end of roving patrols;
• Tightening the rules governing the use of warrants;
• Requiring Immigration and Customs Enforcement to coordinate with state and local law enforcement;
• Implementing a uniform code of conduct that holds federal law enforcement to the same set of standards that apply to state and local agencies;
• Barring the wearing of masks;
• Requiring the use of body cameras;
• Mandating immigration agents carry proper identification. 

“These are common-sense reforms, ones that Americans know and expect from law enforcement,” Schumer said. “If Republicans refuse to support them, they are choosing chaos over order, plain and simple. They are choosing to protect ICE from accountability over American lives.”

Schumer said Democrats want to negotiate with Republicans, but called on Senate GOP leaders to separate out the funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security from a package that includes five other full-year appropriations bills. 

The bills must become law before a Friday midnight deadline to avoid a partial government shutdown. 

Schumer said he expects senators could “very quickly negotiate a bipartisan proposal” on restrictions to federal immigration activities.

Thune, White House weigh in

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said shortly before Schumer spoke that he isn’t ruling out any options for funding the government.

“These are all hypotheticals at this point, and I will reserve optionality to consider that,” Thune said. “But I think the best path forward, as I’ve said, is to keep the package intact. And if there are things that the Democrats want that the administration can agree with them about, then let’s do that.”

Thune expressed concern that any changes to the six-bill government spending package, which includes funding for the Department of Defense, would require it to go back to the House for final approval before it could become law. 

The House is out this week and isn’t scheduled to return to Capitol Hill until 

Monday, possibly causing a brief funding lapse if Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., doesn’t call that chamber back early. 

A White House official said in a statement to States Newsroom the administration wants to avoid a shutdown and is committed to a “productive dialogue with the Congress.”

“A demand for agreement on legislative reforms as a condition of funding the Department of Homeland Security with a government funding deadline just 48 hours away is a demand for a partial government shutdown,” according to a White House official. “This bipartisan appropriations package, which the Democrats agreed to and have now walked away from, has been under negotiation for more than a month. The White House urges congressional Democrats not to subject the country to another debilitating government shutdown.”

Schumer said during his press conference the White House “has had no specific, good, concrete ideas.”

Alex Pretti killing

Congress has approved half of a dozen full-year government funding bills, but hasn’t yet cleared the remaining measures, which make up a huge swath of government spending. 

A partial government shutdown would affect the Departments of Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, State, Transportation and Treasury. The Executive Office of the President, Supreme Court and judicial branch would also go without funding. 

Democrats’ insistence for additional guardrails on how federal immigration officers operate follows the death of 37-year-old Alex Pretti, the second person in Minneapolis shot and killed by federal immigration agents.

ICE would still be able to operate during a shutdown, due to an influx of funding from the massive tax and spending cuts package Republicans passed and President Donald Trump signed into law last summer.

The “One Big Beautiful Act” provided the Department of Homeland Security with $170 billion for immigration enforcement spread across four years, with $75 billion of that going directly to ICE. 

The Homeland Security appropriations bill at the center of the current dispute in Congress keeps ICE flat funded at $10 billion for the fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 and will end on Sept. 30.

In the wake of the Jan. 7 shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good by federal immigration officer Jonathan Ross, Democrats and Republicans agreed to some changes for the department that are provided for in the bill. That includes $20 million for body cameras for ICE and other federal immigration officers, $20 million for independent oversight of detention facilities and a $1 billion cut to Customs and Border Protection funding, which totals $18.3 billion.  

Border Patrol agents’ shooting of Pretti on Jan. 24 spurred Democrats to call for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to resign and demand additional reforms at DHS. 

No masks, body cameras required

Maine independent Sen. Angus King said Wednesday while the funding bill up for debate allocates money for optional body cameras, he wants to require immigration agents to wear them and to identify themselves. 

“I think one of the things that should be in it is no masks,” King said. “There’s not a law enforcement agency in the United States that wears masks. I’ve never encountered that before in my life.”

King added he wants to see increased “accountability” for federal immigration officers, including “independent investigations of injuries to either detainees or private citizens.”

The top Democrat on the panel that deals with Homeland Security funding, Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, said the proposed changes are a start.

“I’ve got a much longer list of reforms that I would like, but we’re operating in a world of possibility, and I think that these reforms are things that we could get done in the next couple days, or the next week,” he said. 

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she’s okay splitting off the Homeland Security spending bill from the rest of the package. 

Murkowski also said she believes Trump should replace Noem.

“Ultimately it’s his call as to who he keeps in this position, whether it’s Secretary Noem or someone else. I understand that. And he’ll decide,” she said. “I just think that he deserves better.”

Two ‘losers,’ Trump says

North Carolina GOP Sen. Thom Tillis also called for Noem’s resignation, and for White House senior advisor Stephen Miller to be removed. Miller is the main architect of the Trump administration’s immigration policy, and played a pivotal role in the president’s first administration.

On Tuesday during an interview with ABC News, Trump called Tillis and Murkowski “both losers” for calling for Noem’s resignation and criticizing her handling of immigration operations in Minnesota. The president has stood by Noem.

“I’m kind of excited about being called a loser,” Tillis said. “Apparently, that qualifies me for DHS secretary and senior advisor to the president.”

South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds didn’t entirely rule out supporting a five-bill funding package if GOP leaders agree to remove the DHS appropriations bill. 

“I won’t get ahead of the president on it … but even if you do that, the House still has to approve that,” Rounds said. “The question is, logistically, can they get back in time to do it by Friday night?”

Texas Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar, ranking member on the House Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee, wrote in a social media post that while the current bill isn’t perfect, it “is better than those alternatives.”

“But the worst thing Congress could do is allow a powerful department to operate with a blank check under a continuing resolution or shut the government down entirely.”

Many candies contain Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5 and Yellow No. 6. They are among the food dyes banned in West Virginia by a measure signed into law in March. Such bans are just one example of how the "Make America Healthy Again" movement has made inroads in state legislatures. (Photo by Carol Johnson/Stateline)

This article first appeared on KFF Health News.

When one of Adam Burkhammer’s foster children struggled with hyperactivity, the West Virginia legislator and his wife decided to alter their diet and remove any foods that contained synthetic dyes.

“We saw a turnaround in his behavior, and our other children,” said Burkhammer, who has adopted or fostered 10 kids with his wife. “There are real impacts on real kids.”

The Republican turned his experience into legislation, sponsoring a bill to ban seven dyes from food sold in the state. It became law in March, making West Virginia the first state to institute such a ban from all food products.

The bill was among a slew of state efforts to regulate synthetic dyes. In 2025, roughly 75 bills aimed at food dyes were introduced in 37 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Chemical dyes and nutrition are just part of the broader “Make America Healthy Again” agenda. Promoted by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., MAHA ideas have made their deepest inroads at the state level, with strong support from Republicans — and in some places, from Democrats. The $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program — created last year as part of the GOP’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act to expand health care access in rural areas — offers incentives to states that implement MAHA policies.

Federal and state officials are seeking a broad swath of health policy changes, including rolling back routine vaccinations and expanding the use of drugs such as ivermectin for treatments beyond their approved use. State lawmakers have introduced dozens of bills targeting vaccines, fluoridated water and PFAS, a group of compounds known as “forever chemicals” that have been linked to cancer and other health problems.

In addition to West Virginia, six other states have targeted food dyes with new laws or executive orders, requiring warning labels on food with certain dyes or banning the sale of such products in schools. California has had a law regulating food dyes since 2023.

Most synthetic dyes used to color food have been around for decades. Some clinical studies have found a link between their use and hyperactivity in children. And in early 2025, in the last days of President Joe Biden’s term, the Food and Drug Administration outlawed the use of a dye known as Red No. 3.

Major food companies including Nestle, Hershey  and PepsiCo have gotten on board, pledging to eliminate at least some color additives from food products over the next year or two.

“We anticipate that the momentum we saw in 2025 will continue into 2026, with a particular focus on ingredient safety and transparency,” said John Hewitt, the senior vice president of state affairs for the Consumer Brands Association, a trade group for food manufacturers.

This past summer, the group called on its members to voluntarily eliminate federally certified artificial dyes from their products by the end of 2027.

“The state laws are really what’s motivating companies to get rid of dyes,” said Jensen Jose, regulatory counsel for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit health advocacy group.

Andy Baker-White, the senior director of state health policy for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, said the bipartisan support for bills targeting food dyes and ultraprocessed food struck him as unusual. Several red states have proposed legislation modeled on California’s 2023 law, which bans four food additives.

“It’s not very often you see states like California and West Virginia at the forefront of an issue together,” Baker-White said.

Although Democrats have joined Republicans in some of these efforts, Kennedy continues to drive the agenda. He appeared with Texas officials when the state enacted a package of food-related laws, including one that bars individuals who participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — SNAP or food stamps — from using their benefits to buy candy or sugary drinks. In December, the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved similar waivers sought by six states. Eighteen states will block SNAP purchases of those items in 2026.

There are bound to be more. The Rural Health Transformation Program also offers incentives to states that implemented restrictions on SNAP.

“There are real and concrete effects where the rural health money gives points for changes in SNAP eligibility or the SNAP definitions,” Baker-White said.

In October, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that sets a legal definition for ultraprocessed foods and will phase them out of schools. It’s a move that may be copied in other states in 2026, while also providing fodder for legal battles. In December, San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu sued major food companies, accusing them of selling “harmful and addictive” products. The lawsuit names specific brands — including cereals, pizzas, sodas and potato chips — linking them to serious health problems.

Kennedy has also blamed ultraprocessed foods for chronic diseases. But even proponents of the efforts to tackle nutrition concerns don’t agree on which foods to target. MAHA adherents on the right haven’t focused on sugar and sodium as much as policymakers on the left. The parties have also butted heads over some Republicans’ championing of raw milk, which can spread harmful germs, and the consumption of saturated fat, which contributes to heart disease.

Policymakers expect other flash points. Moves by the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that are making vaccine access more difficult have led blue states to find ways to set their own standards apart from federal recommendations, with 15 Democratic governors announcing a new public health alliance in October. Meanwhile, more red states may eliminate vaccine mandates for employees; Idaho made them illegal. And Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is pushing to eliminate school vaccine mandates.

Even as Kennedy advocates eliminating artificial dyes, the Environmental Protection Agency has loosened restrictions on chemicals and pesticides, leading MAHA activists to circulate an online petition calling on President Donald Trump to fire EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.

Congress has yet to act on most MAHA proposals. But state lawmakers are poised to tackle many of them.

“If we’re honest, the American people have lost faith in some of our federal institutions, whether FDA or CDC,” said Burkhammer, the West Virginia lawmaker. “We’re going to step up as states and do the right thing.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — an independent source of health policy research, polling and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

A small cannabis plant. (Photo by Getty Images)

President Donald Trump’s administration is looking “very strongly” at reclassifying cannabis from the strictest category of controlled substances, Trump said Monday.

In a brief affirmative response to a reporter’s question in the Oval Office, the president confirmed he is considering a reclassification of marijuana to unlock research funding.

“A lot of people want to see it — the reclassification — because it leads to tremendous amounts of research that can’t be done unless you reclassify,” Trump said. “So we are looking at that very strongly.”

Marijuana is considered a Schedule I drug under the Food and Drug Administration’s classification of controlled substances. The FDA defines drugs on the list, such as heroin and cocaine, as lacking any medicinal value and carrying a high likelihood of abuse.

The designation carries a host of consequences, including a virtual ban on funding research for medicinal or other uses of the drug.

While marijuana use, both medicinal and recreational, is legal in many states, it remains illegal to possess or use in any amount for any reason under federal law.

Advocates have sought for decades to legalize or decriminalize the drug, which many see as less harmful than other Schedule I substances.

The growing split in recent years among many states and federal law has ramped up pressure on federal policymakers to alter the drug’s legal status.

Marijuana businesses in states where it is legal lack access to financial institutions, which cannot lend to businesses considered illegal by federal authorities.

States, meanwhile, have had difficulty regulating the environmental and health aspects of their industries.

And lawmakers, especially Democrats, have increasingly highlighted the frequent injustice of marijuana prosecutions that disproportionately affect communities of color and poor communities, though the drug is widely used across race and economic status.

A billboard advertises an artificial intelligence company in San Francisco in September. California is among the states leading the way on AI regulations, but an executive order signed by President Donald Trump seeks to override state laws on the technology. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

State lawmakers of both parties said they plan to keep passing laws regulating artificial intelligence despite President Donald Trump’s efforts to stop them.

Trump signed an executive order Thursday evening that aims to override state artificial intelligence laws. He said his administration must work with Congress to develop a national AI policy, but that in the meantime, it will crack down on state laws.

The order comes after several other Trump administration efforts to rein in state AI laws and loosen restrictions for developers and technology companies.

But despite those moves, state lawmakers are continuing to prefile legislation related to artificial intelligence in preparation for their 2026 legislative sessions. Opponents are also skeptical about — and likely to sue over — Trump’s proposed national framework and his ability to restrict states from passing legislation.

“I agree on not overregulating, but I don’t believe the federal government has the right to take away my right to protect my constituents if there’s an issue with AI,” said South Carolina Republican state Rep. Brandon Guffey, who penned a letter to Congress opposing legislation that would curtail state AI laws.

The letter, signed by 280 state lawmakers from across the country, shows that state legislators from both parties want to retain their ability to craft their own AI legislation, said South Dakota Democratic state Sen. Liz Larson, who co-wrote the letter.

Earlier this year, South Dakota Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden signed the state’s first artificial intelligence law, authored by Larson, prohibiting the use of a deepfake — a digitally altered photo or video that can make someone appear to be doing just about anything — to influence an election.

South Dakota and other states with more comprehensive AI laws, such as California and Colorado, would see their efforts overruled by Trump’s order, Larson said.

“To take away all of this work in a heartbeat and then prevent states from learning those lessons, without providing any alternative framework at the federal level, is just irresponsible,” she said. “It takes power away from the states.”

Trump’s efforts

Thursday’s executive order will establish an AI Litigation Task Force to bring court challenges against states with AI-related laws, with exceptions for a few issues such as child safety protections and data center infrastructure.

The order also directs the secretary of commerce to notify states that they could lose certain funds under the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program if their laws conflict with national AI policy priorities.

Trump said the order would help the United States beat China in dominating the burgeoning AI industry, adding that Chinese President Xi Jinping did not have similar restraints.

“This will not be successful unless they have one source of approval or disapproval,” he said. “It’s got to be one source. They can’t go to 50 different sources.”

In July, the Trump administration released the AI Action Plan, an initiative aimed at reducing regulatory barriers and accelerating the growth of AI infrastructure, including data centers. Trump also has revoked Biden-era AI safety and anti-discrimination policies.

The tech industry had lobbied for Trump’s order.

“This executive order is an important step towards ensuring that smart, unified federal policy — not bureaucratic red tape — secures America’s AI dominance for generations to come,” said Amy Bos, vice president of government affairs for NetChoice, a technology trade association, in a statement to Stateline.

As the administration looks to address increasing threats to national defense and cybersecurity, a centralized, national approach to AI policy is best, said Paul Lekas, the executive vice president for global public policy and government affairs at the Software & Information Industry Association.

“The White House is very motivated to ensure that there aren’t barriers to innovation and that we can continue to move forward,” he said. “And the White House is concerned that there is state legislation that may be purporting to regulate interstate commerce. We would be creating a patchwork that would be very hard for innovation.”

Congressional Republicans tried twice this year to pass moratoriums on state AI laws, but both efforts failed.

In the absence of a comprehensive federal artificial intelligence policy, state lawmakers have worked to regulate the rapid development of AI systems and protect consumers from potential harms.

Trump’s executive order could cause concern among lawmakers who fear possible blowback from the administration for their efforts, said Travis Hall, the director for state engagement at the Center for Democracy & Technology, a nonprofit that advocates for digital rights and freedom of expression.

“I can’t imagine that state legislators aren’t going to continue to try to engage with these technologies in order to help protect and respond to the concerns of their constituents,” Hall said. “However, there’s no doubt that the intent of this executive order is to chill any actual oversight, accountability or regulation.”

State rules

This year, 38 states adopted or enacted measures related to artificial intelligence, according to a National Conference of State Legislatures database. Numerous state lawmakers have also prefiled legislation for 2026.

But tensions have grown over the past few months as Trump has pushed for deregulation and states have continued to create guardrails.

In 2024, Colorado Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed the nation’s first comprehensive artificial intelligence framework into law. Under the law, developers of AI systems will be required to protect consumers from potential algorithmic discrimination.

But implementation of the law was postponed a few months until June 2026 after negotiations stalled during a special legislative session this summer aiming to ensure the law did not hinder technological innovation. And a spokesperson for Polis told Bloomberg in May that the governor supported a U.S. House GOP proposal that would impose a moratorium on state AI laws.

Trump’s executive order, which mentions the Colorado law as an example of legislation the administration may challenge, has caused uncertainty among some state lawmakers focused on regulating AI. But Colorado state Rep. Brianna Titone and state Sen. Robert Rodriguez, Democratic sponsors of the law, said they will continue their work.

Unless Congress passes legislation to restrict states from passing AI laws, Trump’s executive order can easily be challenged and overturned in court, she said.

“This is just a bunch of hot air,” Titone said. “It doesn’t hold any water and it doesn’t have any teeth because the president doesn’t have the authority to supersede state law. We will continue to do what we need to do for the people in our state, just like we always have, unless there is an actual preemption in federal law.”

California and Illinois also have been at the forefront of artificial intelligence legislation over the past few years. In September, California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the nation’s first law establishing a comprehensive legal framework for developers of the most advanced, large-scale artificial intelligence models, known as frontier artificial intelligence models. Those efforts are aimed at preventing AI models from causing catastrophic harm involving dozens of casualties or billion-dollar damages.

California officials have said they are considering a legal challenge over Trump’s order, and other states and groups are likely to sue as well.

Republican officials and GOP-led states, including some Trump allies, also are pushing forward with AI regulations. Efforts to protect consumers from AI harms are being proposed in Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Utah.

Earlier this month, Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis also unveiled a proposal for an AI Bill of Rights. The proposal aims to strengthen consumer protections related to AI and to address the growing impact data centers are having on local communities.

In South Carolina, Guffey said he plans to introduce a bill in January that would place rules on AI chatbots. Chatbots that use artificial intelligence are able to simulate conversations with users, but raise privacy and safety concerns.

Artificial intelligence is developing fast, Guffey noted. State lawmakers have been working on making sure the technology is safe to use — and they’ll keep doing that to protect their constituents, he said.

“The problem is that it’s not treated like a product — it’s treated like a service,” Guffey said. “If it was treated like a product, we have consumer protection laws where things could be recalled and adjusted and then put back out there once they’re safe. But that is not the case with any of this technology.”

Stateline reporter Madyson Fitzgerald can be reached at mfitzgerald@stateline.org.

The November Farm Foundation® Forum, Growing Together: Trends and Transformation in U.S. Agriculture Labor, highlighted some of the findings from a recent multi-day symposium that explored the future of the U.S. agricultural workforce. The symposium, held by Farm Foundation and the Economic Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, aimed to convene a network of researchers and stakeholders to engage in productive discussions focused on farm labor issues. The primary goal was to strengthen and enhance ongoing farm labor research.

This forum highlighted the critical importance of farm labor to the competitiveness of US agriculture, particularly for labor-intensive commodities like fruits and vegetables. The discussion was moderated by Michael Marsh, president and CEO of the National Council of Agricultural Employers, and featured panelists: Philip Martin Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Davis; Andrew Padovani, senior research associate with JBS International; and Alexandra Hill, assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

The Forum covered a wide range of topics, including wage rates and competition, legislative and regulatory challenges, litigation and legal actions, mechanization and labor alternatives, and economic and demographic trends.

Numerous Issues to Consider

One point brought up was that there has been no significant agricultural labor reform since 1986, making it difficult to address current labor issues. Farmers must also contend with many new regulations, including those related to wage rates and worker protection. The impact of the Adverse Effect Wage Rate and competition with countries like Mexico was also discussed.

One solution to rising labor costs is a push toward mechanization, which brings about its own set of questions around adaptation to this change. In some cases, robotic harvesters are not yet fast enough or inexpensive enough to replace human hand pickers, but the gap may be closing fastest for crops like apples.

The H2-A program was also a large part of the discussion. The use of H-2A workers is increasing, but the program’s costs and regulatory requirements are significant. The anticipated impacts of the incoming administration on the potential for ag labor reform was also briefly discussed during audience question and answer session.

Overall, the Forum underscored the urgent need for comprehensive agricultural labor reform to ensure the sustainability and competitiveness of US agriculture. The discussions highlighted the complex interplay of wage rates, regulatory challenges, and the need for mechanization and alternative labor sources.

The two-hour discussion, including the audience question and answer session, was recorded and is archived on the Farm Foundation website. 

The post Farm Foundation Forum Underscores Need for Comprehensive Agricultural Labor Reform appeared first on Farm Foundation.