The Trump administration is doing its part to mainstream the discussion around advanced AI’s cybersecurity and national security systems. Not only have they issued an executive order on “Promoting Advanced AI Innovation and Security” and banned the import of new Chinese humanoid robots, but they are also set to host a September summit on global AI risk and safety with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Meanwhile, members of Congress are introducing bipartisan proposals to establish oversight for frontier AI systems, including the FRONTIER Act from Reps. Jay Obernolte (R-CA) and Lori Trahan (D-MA). In the Senate, Sens. Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) introduced the AI Risk Evaluation Act last fall, which would require AI developers to submit their most advanced AI models for testing and risk assessment before deployment.

We need Congress to understand the urgency of the moment. Every day lost poses a threat to not only American interests, but humanity itself. AI is the defining issue of our time, and federal momentum is welcomed.

But there is a looming risk that lawmakers will allow one politically divisive issue – federal preemption of state AI laws – to derail legislation that is otherwise needed. Congress should not make that mistake.

The United States needs a federal AI framework for one simple reason: Nobody knows where the lines are drawn, and there are no clear rules to guide development or protect consumers. AI developers lack clear legal obligations, federal agencies lack formal direction, and the public has little visibility into who is ultimately responsible for overseeing the most advanced AI systems. A federal framework would not only solve these issues, but it would provide the statutory clarity that we all need.

I serve as Senior Policy Manager at The Alliance for Secure AI, where I’ve spent the past year working directly with lawmakers and staff on the federal AI framework debates I describe above. Before this, I built my policy career on Capitol Hill and in government affairs, where I advised clients on legislative strategy at the intersection of technology, agriculture and foreign policy. That informs my read on where the FRONTIER Act, the AI Risk Evaluation Act, and the preemption fight are headed. The Alliance for Secure AI is a bipartisan organization that advocates for federal and state AI safety legislation, so I have a direct stake in seeing Congress act — but that’s exactly why I’m watching these negotiations as closely as I am.

Lawmakers are no longer debating AI governance in the abstract. Recently, Reps. Obernolte and Trahan introduced the FRONTIER Act – building off their previously released discussion draft – which would establish a comprehensive federal framework for frontier AI governance, including model development transparency, oversight, and incident reporting. Whether Americans agree with every provision or not, the proposal demonstrates that Congress is capable of debating substantive AI governance measures.

While a handful in Congress are taking the issue of AI oversight and transparency seriously, the debate over preemption risks overshadowing the broader goal of establishing a federal AI governance framework. Instead of coalescing around a single proposal, lawmakers across the aisle are locked in a broader fight over whether states should retain the ability to legislate on AI across certain subject areas, or at all.

Supporters of preemption often argue that a federal regulatory ceiling is necessary to avoid a patchwork of state AI laws. However, that concern bears little resemblance to reality. The states that have taken action are building governance structures that are increasingly functioning as de-facto national standard-setters.

California’s SB 53 established transparency requirements, safety disclosures, incident reporting obligations, and whistleblower protections for frontier AI developers. New York enacted a first-in-the-nation law requiring disclosure when advertisements include AI-generated performers. Most recently, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker signed a landmark AI accountability bill into law that built on  the  efforts in California and New York, explicitly seeking to advance a state-driven national standard in the absence of federal action.

In effect, these states are more likely to set a “de-facto national standard” than create a 50-state regulatory patchwork that industry and pro-preemptioners argue would occur. Concerns around a hypothetical future patchwork shouldn’t prevent action today.

More recently, the conversation has started to shift. Legislators and industry lobbyists alike are seeing that preemption is a losing issue among voters, making preemption one of the most difficult components of a federal AI package to pass. More than 250 state lawmakers recently opposed federal efforts to override state AI laws, arguing that Congress should not strip states of authority before establishing meaningful federal protections of its own. Despite that resistance, the White House and certain congressional allies have continued exploring proposals that would block some state AI laws and reportedly discussed pairing preemption with other priorities.

The result is Washington spending valuable political capital debating federalism instead of focusing on the governance measures that attract broader support.

A federal AI framework should be judged on whether it improves oversight of advanced AI systems, not on whether it resolves every question about federal-state authority in a single bill. 

The moment is urgent, and the time to act is now. The administration has elevated AI as a strategic issue. Lawmakers have put forward serious framework proposals on a bipartisan basis. States have demonstrated both the demand for AI oversight and the risks of continued federal inaction on catastrophic risk, while retaining the authority to address issues like child safety and data center construction.

The opportunity for a federal framework is here. Congress should take it.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.