I. Introduction

Over the past year, political momentum for regulating artificial intelligence has grown amid rising concern over the technology’s potentially existential risks. Earlier debates over data privacy, copyright, and misinformation remain unresolved, while the rapid development of advanced models has made broader safety concerns more acute. This shift has coincided with growing public skepticism toward the technology. With the Trump administration broadly aligned with the AI industry and the technology sector more generally, states have increasingly taken the lead on regulation amid federal inaction. Many state officials who had eagerly embraced AI, including Govs. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) and Greg Abbott (R-TX), have pivoted amid mounting public concerns. With AI regulation increasingly prominent in intraparty debates, it is likely that more leading Democrats will pivot toward stronger safeguards ahead of the 2028 presidential primary.

Gov. Jared Polis (D-CO) stands out as among a shrinking number of prominent Democrats who remain willing to advance the AI industry’s deregulatory agenda. Prior to ever being elected to office, Polis was an entrepreneur who amassed much of his fortune by selling BlueMountain.com and ProFlowers in deals valued at $780 million and $470 million, respectively. But while other Democrats with past ties to the technology sector have sought to assuage public concern by embracing regulation, Polis has moved further in the opposite direction, adopting industry arguments against meaningful oversight.

Two years ago, Colorado passed landmark AI regulation known as the Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act, considered the first comprehensive state law addressing algorithmic discrimination. Following a protracted lobbying campaign by industry groups in Denver, Polis ultimately signed legislation in May 2026 that gutted the original law’s central safeguards before they could take effect. Beyond this, Polis has also vetoed Democratic-backed bills concerning surveillance pricing and algorithmic price-setting in rental markets. It is peculiar that Polis, considered a potential presidential contender, is willing to expend political capital to defeat consumer protections aligned with the priorities of the Democratic base.

II. Approach to State AI Regulation

2024 LAW AND INDUSTRY OPPOSITION

Upon its passage in 2024, the Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act was hailed as a national model for AI regulation. The initial law required companies developing or deploying high-risk AI systems to exercise reasonable care against discrimination. It also mandated that covered companies must conduct impact assessments and establish risk-management programs to alleviate risk. Though the legislation was imperfect, consumer advocates welcomed its passage as a strong step towards building real safeguards against AI harms at the state level. Despite expressing reservations over the law, Polis would ultimately sign it into law.

The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) welcomed the law as an important first step but argued that it needed to be “strengthened, not weakened". The organization noted that the law’s impact-assessment requirement amounted largely to basic due diligence and recordkeeping, while also calling for stronger enforcement, narrower trade-secret protections, and the closure of loopholes. Despite the law’s passage, tech industry groups continued to mount an assault on the bill during the implementation process. Taylor Dolven, a reporter with the Colorado Sun, stated that there were “127 different groups that paid lobbyists to sway lawmakers”, noting that many groups stemmed from the tech industry. In August 2025, state lawmakers would delay implementation rather than allow the original law to take effect. Colorado Senate Majority Leader Robert Rodriguez (D-CO), a sponsor of the original law, attributed its defeat to the "massive amounts of money" spent by technology companies.

Following years of pushback by tech lobby interests, Polis would ultimately align himself with efforts to overturn the landmark legislation. Advocacy groups noted that tech industry leaders apparently refused to accept basic obligations under the law. In August 2025, state lawmakers would delay implementation rather than allow the original law to take effect. In May 2026, Polis urged lawmakers to avoid a "heavy hand" when crafting AI legislation, echoing industry arguments that, with Colorado being a “small to mid-sized state,” it could not afford to implement AI regulations that could deter investment. On May 14, 2026, Polis would sign SB 26‑189 into law, a measure that replaced the Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act. Though the new law preserved limited disclosure and appeal rights, it eliminated crucial provisions that gave the original bill teeth, namely impact assessments and risk-management program requirements.

FEDERAL PREEMPTION AND CONSEQUENTIAL VETOES

Polis has argued that Colorado's status as a “small to mid-sized state" means the state should avoid implementing AI regulations that could deter investment. He stated that Colorado's smaller population shouldn't necessarily preclude the state from "adopt[ing] things that California, Texas, or New York have adopted" on AI policy. On its own, this argument is not especially convincing, and reads as a self-serving justification for rolling back safeguards. It is especially unconvincing given that Polis supported Republican congressional efforts to impose a ten-year moratorium on state AI regulation. National Republican efforts to curb states' ability to regulate AI, which has proven controversial even among Republicans, would also apply to larger states. At the time, a spokesperson for Polis stated that he supported a proposed moratorium to allow Congress to adopt a “true 50-state solution" on AI regulation.

Given Congress's long record of inaction on tech policy, something Polis was certainly privy to as a U.S. Representative, this reads as insincere. The proposed moratorium was backed by the Trump administration, which has broadly opposed federal safeguards against AI harms. By supporting the proposed moratorium, Polis effectively expressed support for the hands-off status quo on AI in Washington. As critics of the moratorium effort noted at the time, the proposal would have hampered important state AI efforts to curb AI-related fraud, discrimination, and exploitative material. Colorado itself had already enacted a law mandating disclosures for certain AI-generated campaign communications, which would have been jeopardized by the moratorium effort. 

Beyond the Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act, Polis has taken a similar laissez-faire approach to tech-related consumer protections. In 2026, he vetoed surveillance pricing legislation that would have restricted the use of personal data for individualized prices and wages. Polis justified the veto by arguing the legislation was too broad in scope, an argument aligned with industry objections to the proposal. In 2025, he vetoed legislation to restrict landlords from using rent-setting algorithms, despite concerns that algorithmic coordination contributes to higher rents for renters. Beyond this, Polis vetoed a bipartisan social-media accountability bill; the veto prompted significant backlash, with the Colorado Senate voting 29-6 to override him. This marked the first instance of Colorado legislators overturning a veto since 2011. Polis' industry-friendly record on tech regulation has coincided with concerns about corporate interests' influence at Boettcher Mansion. Though Polis has largely self-financed his campaigns, allowing him to present as independent of special interests, his 2023 inauguration committee accepted $1.5 million from 75 sponsors. The corporate sponsors included, among others, Amazon, Oracle, Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, and Comcast.

III. Conclusion

AI industry groups have publicly celebrated Colorado’s on regulation. In September, the executive director of the American Innovators Network, Jeremy Kudon, cited Polis’s support for replacing the 2024 law as proof that governors can serve as a final “backstop” against regulation. Alongside Poli, Kudon positively cited former Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA), California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA), and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY), who all vetoed or weakened AI legislation in the face of industry backlash. In the interview, Kudon described the technology lobby as “Davids” fighting regulatory “Goliaths.” Tech interests' decision to celebrate the defanging of safeguards comes at a time when concerns over advanced AI systems are more prominent than ever. Jeff Hauser of the Revolving Door Project recently described AI companies as a political “millstone” around the necks of their leading advocates in office.

A poll by Politico in May 2026 found that just 13 percent of Trump voters believed the federal government should stay out of AI regulation. In contrast, around three-quarters of those polled backed strict rules or broad federal standards. There's no question that, if even the Trump administration’s hands-off approach to AI is out of step with his own base, Polis' pro-industry stance is completely out of touch with the people who elected him. Ahead of a potential presidential bid in 2028, Polis' positions on AI stand out given he has already lost significant goodwill among Democrats. In 2024, he drew immediate backlash after declaring that he was "excited" by the selection of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services. In 2026, his decision to commute the sentence of election conspiracist Tina Peters amid pressure from Trump resulted in a collapse in institutional support. In a vote, nearly 90 percent of the Colorado Democratic Party's central committee chose to censure Polis. By doubling down on effectively giving Republicans in Washington the keys on AI regulation, Polis is directly undermined his own voters while harming his political prospects in the process.​​