Different State Regulatory Approaches Reflect Open Questions About AI Mental Health Tools

States Move to Regulate AI Mental Health Tools with Varying Approaches

Concerns about AI chatbots providing wrong or potentially dangerous advice have prompted legislative activity in multiple states, following documented cases of chatbots responding inappropriately to mental health-related prompts and allegations that interactions with AI were a contributing factor in multiple suicides. AI chatbots have also been documented giving false or misleading responses to health-related questions, including cases where chatbots reinforced users’ inaccurate beliefs rather than correcting them. 

As about one in six (16%) adults, including three in ten (28%) adults under 30, say they have used AI tools for mental health information or advice in the past year, states have begun to use regulations to address these concerns, with different approaches:

• Restricting AI from providing or claiming to be mental health care. Laws in Illinois, Nevada, Tennessee, Vermont, and Rhode Island have restricted the use of AI in mental health care, either by restricting what the tools are allowed to do or how they are allowed to be advertised. Most laws in this group still allow for licensed professionals to use AI in some capacity, including laws in Colorado and Vermont that both explicitly allow administrative use of AI tools.
• Focusing on data protection and disclosure. A law in Utah passed last year takes a different approach than banning the use of unsupervised mental health chatbots outright. Instead, the state requires data privacy protections and safety disclosures while still permitting their use. An additional law in Rhode Island also includes a version of this in addition to bans on the independent practice of therapy by AI, requiring patient consent and notification when AI is used to document clinical visits. 
• Pending legislation largely mirrors one of these approaches. Bills still pending in both California and Pennsylvania would restrict AI from independently delivering or recommending psychotherapy services. A separate bill in Pennsylvania and another in New Jersey focus on disclosure and data protections instead.

Why This Matters: The policy approaches have varied by state, with some states enacting restrictions on AI providing or representing itself as mental health care, while others have focused more on disclosure and data practices. The differences reflect an unresolved policy question about whether AI should primarily be treated as a clinical support tool, a consumer technology, or a form of health care requiring professional oversight.

Executive Order Calls for Changes to Childhood Vaccine Schedule, As Officials Repeat Unsupported Claims About Vaccine Safety

What happened?

An executive order signed earlier this month by President Trump called for further changes to the childhood vaccine schedule, including calling for the combined MMR vaccine to instead be offered as separate shots, and new research on vaccine timing. Although the EO does not explicitly mention autism, Trump repeatedly connected vaccines to rising autism rates during an event for its signing, claiming that the action would lower autism diagnoses.

What does public opinion research tell us about people’s perceptions of vaccine safety?

KFF’s June 2026 Tracking Poll on Health Information and Trust found that two-thirds of adults (66%) had heard the false claim that MMR vaccines had been proven to cause autism, with about six in ten (61%) expressing some level of uncertainty, saying the claim was either “probably true” (22%) or “probably false” (39%). That level of uncertainty has remained stable since KFF began asking about belief in that false claim in June 2023, even as research has continued to find no causal association. Notably, few adults (4%) say they think this myth is “definitely true,” while a larger share (33%) say it is “definitely false.”

Eight in ten adults (81%) in the June survey said they were very or somewhat confident in the safety of these vaccines for children, and 84% of parents said the same in the KFF/The Washington Post Survey of Parents conducted in summer 2025. 

How is this reflected in online conversations?

Claims about vaccines and autism, both perpetuating and debunking a connection, remain a prominent part of online vaccine discourse. KFF’s monitoring of social media found that on August 11, the day after the EO was signed, the number of posts, reposts, and comments that mentioned keywords relating to both vaccines and autism reached their highest volume of 2026 thus far, across X, Reddit, and YouTube. On that day, more than 38,000 posts, reposts, and comments contained keywords for both of these topics, compared to a daily average of about 5,800 this year as of August 21. While it is not possible to attribute the spike in posts directly to the EO, a share of posts mentioning both vaccines and autism also included a direct reference to the order.

While many posts sought to refute a connection between autism and vaccines, some posts with high engagement repeated false claims about the alleged connection. Some of these posts included video clips of false comments made by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., including claims that “none of the vaccines have ever been tested for autism.” Another claimed that Kennedy had “debunked” existing studies about a possible connection.

What does the research on MMR vaccine safety say?

Several studies over the last decade have found no evidence of a causal association between MMR vaccines and autism. Most recently, a retrospective cohort study of more than 2.5 million children published last month found no association between the first dose of MMR vaccination, typically given between 11.5 and 24 months, and autism diagnosis. The new study did not specifically examine the second dose, which is usually given between ages 4 and 6.

There have been no deaths linked to combined MMR vaccination in healthy people, which had been administered more than 800 million times as of 2021.

Why This Matters

Beyond directly suggesting a causal link between vaccines and autism where none has been proven, official calls for more research into a question the scientific consensus already regards as settled introduce an unwarranted perception of uncertainty. These calls may incorrectly imply that existing evidence is inconclusive or that the question remains genuinely open, a framing that research shows can undermine public trust when applied to questions that are already settled. KFF polling from May showed that among parents who reported skipping or delaying vaccines for their children, a large share expressed mixed and uncertain beliefs across several common vaccine myths, underscoring the connection between confusion, uncertainty and these parents’ behavior.

False Claims About COVID Vaccines and Miscarriage Follow Release of Fauci Texts

Claims that COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy pose a serious risk of miscarriage resurfaced earlier this month after Republican Senators released text messages from former NIAID Director Anthony Fauci’s government cell phone. In one message, from January 2021, Fauci noted the theoretical concern that fever after a second dose of the vaccine could be associated with miscarriage. The message was sent several months before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) completed its analysis of vaccine safety during pregnancy. The agency did not recommend the vaccine during pregnancy until August 2021, after its analysis showed no increased risk of miscarriage.

KFF media monitoring found multiple highly engaged-with social media posts amplifying misleading claims, suggesting that concerns about miscarriage were a prominent part of the online response to the released messages. Some posts, including those shared by Senator Rand Paul, repeated the false claim that the vaccine was proven to cause miscarriage in up to 82% of pregnancies, a claim that relies on a misreading of a 2021 study whose actual finding of a 12.6% miscarriage rate was in line with prevalence generally.

Research does not support an elevated risk of miscarriage following COVID-19 vaccination. On the other hand, COVID infection during pregnancy has been shown to be associated with higher risk of both severe illness and pregnancy loss. Major medical organizations, including the American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (ACOG), continue to recommend vaccination during pregnancy because of the vaccines’ known safety and benefits to both the pregnant person and for infants who are too young to get vaccinated.

Why This Matters: False claims can recur in public discourse even after being debunked repeatedly over the course of several years. The claim of an 82% miscarriage rate has circulated since 2021 and been repeatedly corrected, but a fresh news hook, like the release of Fauci’s text messages, can reintroduce it to audiences who are already uncertain. A May 2022 KFF poll found that about six in ten (58%) women who were pregnant or trying to become pregnant were not confident in the vaccines’ safety during pregnancy. Widespread uncertainty has continued as official federal guidance has shifted and false claims about these vaccines’ safety have been repeated.

State Attorneys General Investigate Alleged Financial Motivations for Vaccine Recommendations

Recent investigations announced by attorneys general across multiple states are examining whether financial interests may have influenced vaccine recommendations, potentially reinforcing public skepticism about the motives of public health officials and medical organizations.

In August, Florida, Louisiana and West Virginia announced an investigation into former NIAID Director Anthony Fauci, citing journal entries released by Senator Rand Paul that detailed his communications during the pandemic. The investigation will examine Fauci’s financial awards, professional opportunities, and communications related to COVID-19 vaccines. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier said that his state will also examine whether Fauci personally benefited from guidance he issued during the pandemic. Fauci has not been charged with a crime. The investigations follow a Senate committee voting to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress after he repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right to not testify at a hearing last month.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton began a separate investigation into financial incentives for childhood vaccines in January, initially examining medical providers, insurers, vaccine manufacturers and other entities. It has since expanded to focus on the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), including whether financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies influenced its vaccine recommendations. The investigation comes as a growing number of states have moved away from following federal vaccine recommendations; as of August, most states (30, including DC) rely on non-federal sources for at least some childhood vaccine recommendations, with most following AAP guidance.

Similar claims about financial incentives have circulated for months, including from HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who alleged last summer that doctors were improperly being “paid to vaccinate.” Incentive programs for providers do exist, but they are legal, not offered by vaccine manufacturers, and based on dozens of metrics beyond vaccination.

Why This Matters: Repeatedly framing vaccine recommendations as potentially driven by financial incentives could reinforce perceptions that health institutions prioritize financial interests over patient health, particularly as officials question longstanding vaccine recommendations. KFF’s April 2026 Tracking Poll on Health Information and Trust found that fewer than half of adults expressed confidence in federal health agencies like the CDC and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to act independently without interference from outside interests.