As the digital landscape evolves at an unprecedented pace, the nation’s top state technology officials are drawing clear lines in the sand, outlining a federal advocacy agenda that champions state-level innovation while demanding federal support for critical infrastructure. The National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO) has released its 2026 priorities, revealing a strategic blend of persistent goals and a newly urgent focus on public safety communications. This agenda underscores a fundamental tension in modern governance: the delicate balance between a unified national policy and the localized, agile responses of individual states, particularly in the rapidly advancing fields of artificial intelligence and cybersecurity. The organization’s stance makes it clear that while collaboration with Washington is desired, it will not come at the cost of state autonomy in regulating transformative technologies that directly impact their citizens and local economies.
The Battle for AI Governance
A central pillar of NASCIO’s federal agenda is the fierce defense of state authority in the burgeoning field of artificial intelligence regulation, a position that puts the organization in direct opposition to growing efforts from the White House and Congress to establish a single, preemptive federal framework. State CIOs are expressing profound concern that a top-down federal mandate would stifle the innovative and tailored legislative work already underway across the country. States have been at the forefront of addressing specific AI-related harms, proactively developing hundreds of laws and best practices designed to tackle localized issues, such as protecting minors from the malicious use of deepfake technology and ensuring fairness by preventing discriminatory employee monitoring algorithms. While acknowledging the tech industry’s preference for a uniform regulatory environment to ease compliance burdens, NASCIO has unequivocally labeled any federal attempt to impose a blanket moratorium on state-level AI legislation as a “nonstarter,” signaling a determined pushback against what it perceives as federal overreach into state affairs.
The ongoing debate over AI governance highlights a deeper philosophical divide between federal and state approaches to technological oversight, reflecting a classic American political dynamic in a new-age context. Proponents of federal preemption argue that a patchwork of fifty different regulatory schemes would create a complex and burdensome legal landscape, potentially hindering economic growth and slowing the pace of innovation for companies operating nationwide. Conversely, state officials maintain that they are better positioned to act as nimble “laboratories of democracy,” capable of responding more swiftly and effectively to the unique needs, values, and concerns of their diverse constituencies. This dynamic positions states not merely as subordinate entities but as crucial pioneers in developing responsible AI policy. Their argument is that localized experimentation allows for the development of nuanced solutions that can inform a more thoughtful and comprehensive national strategy over time, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach that may fail to address specific regional challenges or ethical considerations.
Securing Critical Infrastructure and Communications
Another consistent and critical priority for state CIOs is the push for stable, long-term funding and reauthorization of the State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program (SLCGP), which has become an indispensable tool in the fight against increasingly sophisticated digital threats. The organization is advocating strongly for predictability in the program’s timeline and funding levels, arguing that consistent support is essential for states to engage in effective long-range strategic planning and build resilient cybersecurity postures. Although recent legislative action has extended the program, NASCIO is championing a more permanent solution, such as the PILLAR Act, which passed the House and would secure the program’s operations through 2033. While the current level of funding is widely considered insufficient to meet the escalating cybersecurity demands faced by state and local governments, the immediate and primary objective is to ensure the program’s fundamental continuity, thereby safeguarding the digital infrastructure that underpins public services and protects sensitive citizen data from a constant barrage of attacks.
Marking the most significant shift in this year’s agenda, NASCIO has elevated the reauthorization of FirstNet, the nationwide public safety broadband network, to a top-tier priority, replacing the previous focus on bolstering the state cybersecurity workforce. This change reflects the pressing urgency of the situation, as the network’s legislative authority is set to expire on February 22. Established by Congress in 2012 to rectify the severe communication interoperability failures that hampered emergency response during the 9/11 attacks, FirstNet is now a cornerstone of state-level crisis management. For state CIOs, the network is an irreplaceable asset during natural disasters, public health emergencies, and other critical incidents, guaranteeing that first responders have a reliable and dedicated communications channel when commercial networks are often congested or compromised. The broad-based support for its continuation, underscored by a recent Senate hearing and a survey indicating that 93% of first responders favor reauthorization, adds considerable weight to this crucial advocacy effort.
A Path Forward Defined by Partnership
The 2026 federal advocacy priorities articulated by the nation’s state CIOs painted a clear picture of their vision for the future of technology governance. The agenda underscored a dual-track approach: one that fiercely protected the rights of states to innovate and regulate emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, and another that actively sought robust and predictable federal partnership in securing critical digital infrastructure. The elevation of FirstNet’s reauthorization alongside the steadfast defense of state-level AI rulemaking demonstrated a pragmatic understanding of the distinct roles state and federal governments must play. Ultimately, the success of this agenda rested on Washington’s willingness to embrace a model of cooperative federalism, one that respected state autonomy while providing the foundational support necessary to protect the nation’s digital backbone and empower its first responders.
