Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies – Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Family Business First: How the Big Beautiful Bill Guts States’ Rights to Regulate the Trump Family’s Newest Investments

President Trump may be backing this bill with everything he has because his family’s future is written into it.

by Met Middleson

June 8, 2025

Just months before the debut of the One Big Beautiful Bill, two of Donald Trump’s children quietly entered the artificial intelligence arms race. Backed by a Wall Street holding company with ties to digital infrastructure, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump invested in American Data Centres Inc., a private venture focused on building AI and crypto-friendly facilities across the United States. At the same time, President Trump was preparing to launch a sweeping legislative package that would cement federal control over the AI economy, strip state governments of regulatory authority, and unlock hundreds of billions in public and foreign-backed infrastructure funding. The bill may be positioned as a national strategy. But its terms align closely with the business interests of the president’s own family.

THE FAMILY POSITIONED

On February 18, 2025, Dominari Holdings, a publicly traded company based in New York, announced the launch of American Data Centres Inc. The firm, backed in part by Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, plans to construct high-efficiency data infrastructure across the country, targeting both artificial intelligence compute power and cryptocurrency mining. According to SEC filings and company press releases, the venture is positioning itself to take advantage of national momentum around artificial intelligence and the demand for power-intensive server facilities.

In late March, just weeks before the One Big Beautiful Bill was introduced in Congress, American Data Centres announced a new strategic partnership with a crypto infrastructure firm, expanding its footprint while maintaining its focus on AI. At the same time, President Trump was preparing to unveil a sweeping legislative package that included tax incentives, federal zoning directives, and artificial intelligence deregulation measures designed to accelerate infrastructure development. Among the bill’s most controversial provisions was a ten-year ban on state-level AI regulation. That language may directly benefit companies like American Data Centres by shielding them from oversight in states like California, New York, and Virginia.

THE BIG BEAUTIFUL SELL

From the start, President Trump has pitched the One Big Beautiful Bill as a unifying leap into the future. In public remarks, he described it as a patriotic milestone, claiming it would unleash American genius and make sure no one, not China and not Europe, gets ahead of the United States in the artificial intelligence race. The bill was rolled out as a broad legislative effort to create jobs, modernize infrastructure, and solidify America’s position in a fast-changing global economy.

At a March meeting with the NATO Secretary General, Trump said, “We have the big, beautiful bill. We gotta get that done and that will put our country in a position like it’s never been in.” He framed the bill as a blend of tax reform, environmental incentives, and strategic dominance, calling it “great environmentally” and “tremendous” for attracting global investment. That messaging, repeated in speeches and social media posts throughout the spring, helped position the legislation as a generational achievement but omitted any mention of the bill’s impact on state authority.

When the House passed the bill on May 22, the White House released a statement calling it a once-in-a-generation opportunity to solidify the America First agenda. Days later, Trump took to social media, urging the Senate to move quickly. “Passing THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL is a Historic Opportunity to turn our Country around,” he wrote. “Work as fast as they can to get this Bill to MY DESK before the Fourth of JULY.”

Missing from those speeches, statements, and social media posts was any reference to the nearly 1,200-page bill’s most far-reaching regulatory shift. A single provision blocks state and local governments from regulating artificial intelligence for ten years. That moratorium applies not just to software models and consumer-facing tools but to physical infrastructure such as data centers, power systems, and water-intensive computing hubs that states have only recently begun to scrutinize. The bill’s language shifts all authority to the federal level, effectively cutting governors, state legislators, and local agencies out of the conversation for the next decade.

THE CLAUSE THAT SILENCES

Buried on pages 278 and 279 of the One Big Beautiful Bill is a clause that rewrites the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The language prohibits any state or local government from creating, enforcing, or modifying laws related to artificial intelligence for a period of ten years following the bill’s enactment. The restriction applies broadly, not just to software or algorithms but to any system, process, or infrastructure involving machine learning, neural networks, or automated decision-making.

Legal analysts and technology policy groups have raised alarms over the scope of the clause. It effectively overrides state laws already on the books in places like Colorado, Illinois, and California, which have passed rules addressing bias in hiring algorithms, biometric surveillance, and deepfake political content. It also halts the development of pending legislation in more than a dozen other states. The freeze extends beyond digital tools to the infrastructure that supports them, potentially blocking states from regulating the power use, water consumption, zoning, and environmental impact of large-scale AI data centers.

At the federal level, no comprehensive artificial intelligence regulatory framework currently exists. With the passage of this bill, the federal government would hold exclusive authority without any clear roadmap for how that authority will be used. Critics argue the result is a vacuum, one that protects early movers and well-positioned private firms while sidelining the states and localities most directly impacted by AI’s expansion.

A STRUCTURE BUILT TO BENEFIT

The timing of the bill’s release is raising questions not only about federal authority but about who stands to benefit from the regulatory vacuum it creates. With state governments unable to act, infrastructure projects that would have once required extensive review now face a single point of federal approval. For companies with strong political ties or pre-positioned partnerships, that creates a significant advantage.

Among those positioned to gain is American Data Centres Inc., the infrastructure firm backed by Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump. The company’s business model depends on the rapid construction of high-powered data centers that support artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency, and cloud operations. In states like Virginia, California, and New York, environmental review boards are raising concerns about water usage, electricity demand, and zoning strain from AI-driven infrastructure. Under the new bill, those concerns no longer fall under state jurisdiction.

Other Trump-aligned ventures may also benefit. The Stargate initiative, announced by President Trump in January, includes partnerships with Oracle, OpenAI, and foreign-backed infrastructure funds seeking to build AI campuses on U.S. soil. The federal ban on state interference may streamline those projects just as new federal energy waivers, land access programs, and tax incentives begin to roll out. Whether intentional or not, the legislative landscape is shifting in a direction that favors early insiders and consolidates control under the Trump administration in Washington.

THE STATE-LEVEL REVOLT

The AI moratorium clause did not go unnoticed for long. Days after the bill passed the House, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene announced a sudden and public reversal. Known for her unwavering loyalty to President Trump and for gaining political traction by aligning herself closely with his agenda, Greene surprised many of her own supporters by turning against one of his signature legislative efforts. In a post on X, she admitted she had not read the full 1,200-page text and said she would have voted no had she known about the language on pages 278 and 279. “Full transparency,” she wrote. “I did not know about this section… This is a violation of state rights, and I will not support it in the final version.” She later doubled down in a committee hearing, stating clearly that she would vote no if the clause remained.

Her shift gave political cover to a growing list of state and local leaders who are voicing concern. Governors in California, Illinois, and Washington have called for the provision to be removed. Attorneys general from both parties are warning that the ban would undercut existing enforcement tools and preempt laws passed by elected legislatures. Even Elon Musk, a former supporter of Trump’s early tech agenda, called the moratorium short-sighted and reckless, adding that it invites abuse.

In response to the backlash, Senate Republicans have floated alternatives that would tie compliance to federal broadband funding rather than impose a blanket preemption. But so far, the House language remains unchanged. And with the White House pushing for a swift reconciliation process, time is running out for state leaders to assert any control over how artificial intelligence expands inside their borders.

THE STAKES

Artificial intelligence is evolving faster than most institutions can respond. That pace has created a regulatory vacuum, one that Congress is now attempting to fill. But the decision to sideline state governments for a full decade raises more questions than it answers. In industries where innovation moves quickly, local accountability has often served as a check on overreach. Removing that layer of oversight may speed up development, but it also concentrates power in fewer hands.

In this case, some of those hands belong to the family of the president who signed the bill. The overlap between private investment and public authority may not violate the letter of the law, but it places the entire effort under a shadow of self-interest. At minimum, it changes the conversation. This is no longer just a question of national strategy. It is a question of who benefits when regulation disappears.