Federal Preemption Pattern: Three Bills, One Playbook

Transparency Source: Press Releases, Congressional Record DOCUMENTED PATTERN

Original source → · Archived copy →

Statement

In February 2026, Rep. Langworthy introduced or advanced three separate legislative efforts to override state and local laws using federal authority:

  1. Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act (H.R. 7366, introduced Feb 4, 2026) — prevents states from regulating dietary supplements beyond FDA oversight
  2. Energy Choice Act (H.R. 3699, passed committee Dec 3, 2025) — prevents states from banning natural gas hookups
  3. 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:

ElementEnergy Choice ActDietary Supplements ActAI Regulation Letter
TargetState natural gas bansState supplement regulationsState AI accountability laws
Framing“Reckless, ideological mandates”“Regulation for regulation’s sake”“Patchwork of conflicting state laws”
SolutionFederal preemptionFederal preemptionFederal review and preemption
Stated beneficiary“Consumers”“Consumers and small businesses”“American innovation”
Primary state targetedNew YorkNew YorkNew York and Colorado
Industry backers70+ fossil fuel and propane trade groupsNPA, CRN, AHPA, CHPATech 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.

The money, added August 28, 2026: FEC bulk filings show the Natural Products Association PAC gave Langworthy for Congress $5,000 on March 26, 2026 — seven weeks after he introduced the bill the association had endorsed on day one, and its only contribution to him in the 2022, 2024 or 2026 cycles. NPA is also the trade group that sued New York in December 2023 to strike down the very law this bill would preempt; that suit was dismissed and the law took effect in April 2024. The Consumer Healthcare Products Association PAC, another endorser, gave $2,000 across the 2026 cycle and $2,500 in 2024. No agreement or exchange is alleged; the contributions are lawful and publicly disclosed. The sequence is recorded here for the same reason as the rest of this entry: the bill’s press release quotes the trade associations as policy validators and does not note that they are also donors — and in NPA’s case, a litigant that lost in court and gained a sponsor in Congress.

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:

IssuePositionFederal-State Dynamic
Energy Choice ActFederal law should override state gas bansFederal preemption of state authority
Dietary SupplementsFederal law should override state supplement rulesFederal preemption of state authority
AI regulationFederal review should challenge state AI lawsFederal preemption of state authority
SAVE Act (voter ID)Federal law should require states to implement voter IDFederal 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.

Update — June 2026: A Fourth Preemption Initiative

On April 21, 2026, Rep. Langworthy signed on as an original cosponsor of H.R. 8413, the SECURE Data Act, a federal consumer-privacy bill that would preempt state privacy laws under a broad “relates to” preemption standard. The bill targets New York protections that include the SHIELD Act, the pending New York Privacy Act (S3044), and the data-broker registration/deletion bill (S9088A) — which passed the New York State Senate 51-10 on June 3, 2026, the same day the House subcommittee held its first hearing on H.R. 8413. The federal bill contains no private right of action and includes a 45-day right-to-cure provision that limits both FTC and state-AG enforcement.

This extends the pattern documented above to four federal preemption initiatives since December 2025, all targeting New York State law or pending New York State legislation.

See: SECURE Data Act: Langworthy Cosponsors Federal Bill That Would Preempt the New York Privacy Law the State Senate Just Passed

Update — September 2026: The Vote for a Ten-Year Ban on State AI Laws, and Three More Instances

Four further items belong on this record; together with the SECURE Data Act update above they bring the pattern to eight.

1. May 22, 2025: his vote for a ten-year moratorium on state AI laws. The House-passed version of H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, contained a provision at section 43201(c): “no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce, during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, any law or regulation of that State or a political subdivision thereof limiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems…” Rep. Langworthy voted Yea on passage (Roll Call 145, May 22, 2025). The Senate struck the provision on July 1, 2025 by a vote of 99 to 1, on an amendment from Senators Cantwell and Blackburn; only Senator Tillis voted to keep it. The February 2026 letter documented above, asking the Commerce Department to challenge New York’s RAISE Act, followed the vote by nine months.

2. September 2, 2026: the BUSES Act. His own bill, H.R. 9317, would override New York City’s engine-idling ordinance for buses; see the BUSES entry, including his remark to the city’s members in the markup that “it doesn’t stop you from opining about how we should heat our homes in my district.”

3. September 15, 2026: the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act. He is a cosponsor of H.R. 979, which passed the House by voice vote. The Congressional Budget Office’s estimate notes that the bill “would preempt state and local laws by prohibiting those entities from enforcing any laws or regulations pertaining to the access of AM broadcast stations in passenger vehicles,” an intergovernmental mandate under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This one is bipartisan to the point of unanimity, with 158 Democratic and 159 Republican cosponsors; it is listed here because it is preemption, not because it is partisan.

4. September 23, 2026: the statement. On his official page, over a clip of his remarks at the Clarence Center Fire Department: “The process of this cannot be the ‘Wild West,’ with 50 states writing 50 different sets of rules. America needs one clear federal framework.” In the clip: “What we cannot have is 50 states all doing it their own way. We will over-regulate ourselves to the point where we will become Europe.” He credited “a bipartisan work product, a marker bill” by Reps. Obernolte and Trahan. That bill, the Great American AI Act, was released as a discussion draft on June 4, 2026; Roll Call reported on September 15 that “a draft version of the bill set a three-year span for more broad preemption language, but that language was narrowed and the time window was removed in the introduced version,” and that no AI safety bill “seems to have a critical mass of support.” He is not listed as a cosponsor in the version of the record checked for this update.

The post also says “Congress has put hundreds of hours of bipartisan work, hard work, into establishing an America First AI policy,” and the clip credits “hundreds and hundreds of hours of work by” Reps. Obernolte and Trahan. Hours of staff work cannot be checked. What can be: through August 31, 2026 the House had been in session 113 days and 377 hours and 45 minutes in total, per the Congressional Record’s own tally, and held floor votes on 65 days, the fewest through that point in any midterm year since 1994 according to a No Labels count. The Energy and Commerce Committee’s calendar shows six AI-titled hearings in 2025 and one in 2026, on AI and the electric grid. The bipartisan House AI task force that Rep. Obernolte chaired did its work in 2024; the February 20, 2024 announcement lists all 24 members, and he is not one of them. In the clip he says, “I’ve been talking about this in Washington, D.C. since I came to Congress” and “I work on AI in AI policy every day.” Of his 397 press releases from 2023 through September 2026, four mention AI, each in passing, and none announces an AI policy position or bill. Of the 691 bills he has cosponsored in the House, two concern AI by title, both in the previous Congress: the Federal A.I. Governance and Transparency Act of 2024 (joined 2024-03-05) and the Preventing Deepfakes of Intimate Images Act (joined 2024-03-05); neither became law. In this Congress, none. His first technology bill of his own, on quantum computing, was introduced August 27, 2026.

In plain language: the pattern documented in February now includes a recorded vote. Before he wrote to the Commerce Department about New York’s AI law, he voted for a bill that would have barred New York from enforcing it for ten years. The Senate removed that provision 99 to 1.

Summary Table

Bill/ActionState Law TargetedIndustry BeneficiariesLangworthy’s Framing
Energy Choice Act (H.R. 3699)NY gas hookup banFossil fuel, propane, homebuilders“Extremist crusade”
Dietary Supplements Act (H.R. 7366)NY minor supplement sales banSupplement manufacturers and retailers“Baseless overregulation”
AI regulation letter (Feb 19, 2026)NY RAISE Act, CO AI ActTechnology companies“Patchwork” hindering innovation
SECURE Data Act (H.R. 8413)NY SHIELD Act, NY Privacy Act (S3044), NY S9088A57-association coalition: tech platforms, ad-tech, telecom, data brokers, retail(no public Langworthy statement on this bill as of June 6, 2026)
H.R. 1 as passed by the House (May 22, 2025), sec. 43201(c)All state and local AI laws, ten years (NY RAISE Act among them)AI developersVoted Yea; provision struck by the Senate 99–1
BUSES Act (H.R. 9317, his bill)NYC bus-idling ordinanceMotorcoach and school-bus operators“Asinine bus-driver bounty scheme”
AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act (H.R. 979, cosponsor)Any state or local law on AM access in vehicles (CBO)Broadcasters“Critically important lifeline”
AI “one clear federal framework” statement (Sept 23, 2026)“50 states writing 50 different sets of rules”AI developers“Cannot be the ‘Wild West’”

Questions This Raises

  1. Has Rep. Langworthy articulated a consistent principle for when federal law should override state authority and when it should not?

  2. Which industry groups or trade associations have contributed to Rep. Langworthy’s campaign or PAC in connection with these legislative efforts?

  3. Has Rep. Langworthy consulted with NY-23 constituents — including parents concerned about youth supplement safety — about whether they want state protections preempted?

  4. 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

June 2026 update — SECURE Data Act:

Note: This entry documents publicly available legislative records, press releases, and industry endorsements. Readers may draw their own conclusions.

Last updated: September 23, 2026 (September update: the May 2025 AI-moratorium vote, BUSES Act, AM Radio Act, and the September 23 statement)