Federal Preemption Pattern: Three Bills, One Playbook
Statement
In February 2026, Rep. Langworthy introduced or advanced three separate legislative efforts to override state and local laws using federal authority:
- Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act (H.R. 7366, introduced Feb 4, 2026) — prevents states from regulating dietary supplements beyond FDA oversight
- Energy Choice Act (H.R. 3699, passed committee Dec 3, 2025) — prevents states from banning natural gas hookups
- AI regulation letter to Commerce Secretary Lutnick (Feb 19, 2026, with Rep. Gabe Evans) — asks federal government to review and challenge New York and Colorado AI laws
All three efforts use the same rhetorical framework and target the same category of state action: regulations Rep. Langworthy disagrees with.
Why This Matters for NY-23
Each of these initiatives involves a policy area that directly affects NY-23 residents — energy costs, consumer safety, and emerging technology regulation. The question is not whether federal standards are appropriate in some cases (they often are), but whether the justification is applied consistently or selectively.
The Pattern: Identical Language, Different Industries
The rhetorical framing across all three efforts is nearly identical:
| Element | Energy Choice Act | Dietary Supplements Act | AI Regulation Letter |
|---|---|---|---|
| Target | State natural gas bans | State supplement regulations | State AI accountability laws |
| Framing | “Reckless, ideological mandates” | “Regulation for regulation’s sake” | “Patchwork of conflicting state laws” |
| Solution | Federal preemption | Federal preemption | Federal review and preemption |
| Stated beneficiary | “Consumers” | “Consumers and small businesses” | “American innovation” |
| Primary state targeted | New York | New York | New York and Colorado |
| Industry backers | 70+ fossil fuel and propane trade groups | NPA, CRN, AHPA, CHPA | Tech industry (broader lobby effort) |
Bill-by-Bill Analysis
1. Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act (H.R. 7366)
What it does: Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to establish FDA as the sole regulatory authority for dietary supplements, preempting state laws that go further.
What it preempts: New York’s 2024 law (S5823C) banning the sale of weight-loss and muscle-building supplements to minors under 18. Similar legislation has been introduced or considered in California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, and other states.
Rep. Langworthy’s framing:
“These state-level mandates have created a confusing patchwork of rules that do nothing to improve public safety but significantly increase costs for small businesses and limit consumer access to lawful products.”
“New York is notorious for baseless overregulation that burdens small businesses without making anyone safer or improving public health.”
What the state laws address: The New York law targets supplement sales to minors based on public health research. A Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health analysis found that teenagers using weight-loss supplements face elevated risk of eating disorders. From 2004-2015, nearly 1,000 people aged 25 and under experienced severe health conditions linked to dietary supplements, including 166 hospitalizations and 22 deaths.
Industry support: Four major trade associations — the Natural Products Association, Council for Responsible Nutrition, American Herbal Products Association, and Consumer Healthcare Products Association — publicly endorsed H.R. 7366.
A relevant distinction: The FDA does not pre-approve dietary supplements for safety or efficacy before they reach the market. States that enacted supplement regulations did so because federal oversight does not include pre-market review — the gap these state laws were designed to address.
Sources: Congress.gov — H.R. 7366, NY Senate — S5823C, CRN endorsement, Harvard T.H. Chan SPH
2. Energy Choice Act (H.R. 3699)
What it does: Prohibits states or local governments from banning or restricting energy services based on energy type or source.
What it preempts: New York’s All-Electric Building Code (effective for new construction), and similar policies in other states.
Rep. Langworthy’s framing:
“Governor Hochul and Democrats in Albany have waged an extremist crusade against natural gas that’s sent home energy costs through the roof.”
Industry support: Over 70 trade organizations from the fossil fuel, propane, homebuilder, and heating industries have endorsed the bill, including the National Association of Home Builders (which conducted a Capitol Hill lobbying blitz in February 2026 specifically for this bill), Americans for Prosperity (Koch network), and the National Energy and Fuels Institute (NEFI), which helped draft the legislation.
Co-sponsors: 157 as of the February 2026 telephone town hall. Passed the Energy and Commerce Committee 24-21 on December 3, 2025.
Sources: Congress.gov — H.R. 3699, NAHB lobbying blitz
See also: Energy Choice Act
3. AI Regulation Letter (Feb 19, 2026)
What it does: Asks Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to include New York’s RAISE Act and Colorado’s AI Act on the Commerce Department’s review list — a step toward federal preemption under President Trump’s December 2025 executive order creating an “AI Litigation Task Force” to challenge state AI laws.
What the state laws do:
- New York RAISE Act (signed Dec 19, 2025): Requires largest AI developers to create safety and security protocols for severe risks including bioweapons development and automated criminal activity. Creates enforcement office within NY Department of Financial Services.
- Colorado AI Act (SB 24-205, signed May 2024): Requires developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems to implement risk management programs, conduct impact assessments, and enable human oversight for AI decisions in employment, healthcare, housing, insurance, and financial services.
Rep. Langworthy’s framing (via joint letter): State AI regulations create a “patchwork of conflicting state laws” that “poses risks to U.S. competitiveness” and may “benefit foreign competitors, particularly China.”
Broader context: One in four federal lobbyists now work on AI issues as of February 2026. Major technology companies including Microsoft, Google, Meta, and Amazon have actively lobbied for federal preemption of state AI laws. Meta reportedly spent $3.1 million on AI lobbying through the California Chamber of Commerce alone.
Sources: Evans/Langworthy press release, NY RAISE Act — Governor’s office, Colorado SB 24-205, Trump AI Executive Order, AI lobbying — Read Sludge
The Federalism Question
Rep. Langworthy’s position across these three efforts is consistent: the federal government should prevent states from enacting regulations he considers burdensome to industry.
This position exists alongside other positions where Rep. Langworthy supports federal mandates on states:
| Issue | Position | Federal-State Dynamic |
|---|---|---|
| Energy Choice Act | Federal law should override state gas bans | Federal preemption of state authority |
| Dietary Supplements | Federal law should override state supplement rules | Federal preemption of state authority |
| AI regulation | Federal review should challenge state AI laws | Federal preemption of state authority |
| SAVE Act (voter ID) | Federal law should require states to implement voter ID | Federal mandate on state election procedures |
In each case, the federal government is used to override state decisions. In each case, federal preemption would benefit the industries that would otherwise be subject to state regulation.
In plain language: Rep. Langworthy regularly criticizes Albany for overreach and overregulation. He has introduced or supported three separate legislative efforts in February 2026 alone that would use federal law to override state decisions on energy, dietary supplements, and artificial intelligence. In each case, the primary beneficiaries of federal preemption are the industries that would otherwise be subject to state regulation.
Summary Table
| Bill/Action | State Law Targeted | Industry Beneficiaries | Langworthy’s Framing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Energy Choice Act | NY gas hookup ban | Fossil fuel, propane, homebuilders | “Extremist crusade” |
| Dietary Supplements Act | NY minor supplement sales ban | Supplement manufacturers and retailers | “Baseless overregulation” |
| AI regulation letter | NY RAISE Act, CO AI Act | Technology companies | “Patchwork” hindering innovation |
Questions This Raises
Has Rep. Langworthy articulated a consistent principle for when federal law should override state authority and when it should not?
Which industry groups or trade associations have contributed to Rep. Langworthy’s campaign or PAC in connection with these legislative efforts?
Has Rep. Langworthy consulted with NY-23 constituents — including parents concerned about youth supplement safety — about whether they want state protections preempted?
The New York supplement law specifically targets sales to minors. Has Rep. Langworthy stated a position on whether age restrictions on supplement sales are appropriate at any level of government?
Sources
- Congress.gov — H.R. 7366 (Dietary Supplements)
- Congress.gov — H.R. 3699 (Energy Choice Act)
- Langworthy press release — Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act
- Evans/Langworthy AI letter — Quiver Quantitative
- NY Senate — S5823C (supplement law)
- Governor Hochul — RAISE Act
- Colorado SB 24-205
- Trump AI Executive Order (Dec 2025)
- CRN endorsement of H.R. 7366
- Harvard T.H. Chan SPH — Supplement restrictions
- NAHB — Energy Choice Act blitz
- AI lobbying — Read Sludge
- WRFA — Dietary Supplement bill
Note: This entry documents publicly available legislative records, press releases, and industry endorsements. Readers may draw their own conclusions.
Last updated: February 25, 2026