New Mexico AI Laws and Regulation (2026)

New Mexico regulates AI narrowly: HB 182, signed in March 2024, requires a specific disclaimer on AI-generated depictions of real people distributed near an election, with a first willful and knowing violation a misdemeanor and a second conviction a fourth degree felony. Broader proposals, including the New Mexico Artificial Intelligence Act (HB 60) and the Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act (HB 141), were introduced but did not advance.

Overview of New Mexico AI Laws

New Mexico has taken early steps toward regulating artificial intelligence, though the state has not yet enacted a comprehensive AI statute. The most significant enacted legislation is HB 182 (2024), which requires a disclaimer on materially deceptive AI-generated media distributed near an election. Multiple broader proposals have been introduced but have not yet crossed the finish line.

The state's approach to AI regulation has been driven by two key figures: Rep. Christine Chandler (D-Los Alamos), who has championed comprehensive AI transparency legislation, and Attorney General Raul Torrez, who has pushed for accountability measures targeting deepfakes and synthetic media.

New Mexico's 2026 legislative session (a 30-day session focused on budget matters) saw several AI bills introduced, including the Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act and the Artificial Intelligence Transparency Act. Neither advanced before the session adjourned on February 19, 2026. Longer 60-day sessions in odd-numbered years provide more opportunity for substantive policy legislation.

This article covers all enacted and pending New Mexico AI legislation, executive actions, and the interplay between state and federal AI policy. This information is current as of March 2026, but you should consult a licensed attorney for advice specific to your situation.

AI-Generated Political Advertising: HB 182

New Mexico was the first state in 2024 to enact a law addressing AI-generated content in political communications. Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed House Bill 182 on March 5, 2024, with an effective date of May 15, 2024.

Disclosure Requirements

NMSA 1-19-26.8 makes it a violation of the Campaign Reporting Act for a person to distribute, or to enter into an agreement with another person to distribute, materially deceptive media. The prohibition is written against "a person." It is not limited to campaigns, to candidates, or to paid advertising, so an individual who shares a qualifying AI-generated depiction can fall within it even though no campaign and no ad buy is involved.

The statute defines materially deceptive media as an image, video or audio that depicts an individual engaged in conduct or speech in which the depicted individual did not engage, was distributed to the public without the depicted individual's consent, and was produced in whole or in part by using artificial intelligence.

The prohibition does not apply if the media carries a disclaimer, and the statute prescribes the wording rather than a general standard. The disclaimer must state "This ____ has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence," with the blank filled by image, video or audio as applicable, and it must appear in a clear and conspicuous manner in every language used in the media.

The format rules run with the medium. On a still image, the disclaimer text must appear in a size that is easily readable. In a video, it must appear for the duration of the video. In audio-only media, it must be read in a clearly spoken manner at the beginning and at the end, and if the audio is longer than two minutes, interspersed at intervals of not greater than two minutes each. Media that uses more than one form requires a separate disclaimer for each form of media used.

Penalties

The prohibition reaches materially deceptive media distributed within 90 days of an election by a person who knows the depiction is false and intends to mislead voters. A person who willfully and knowingly violates it is guilty of a misdemeanor on a first conviction and a fourth degree felony on a second conviction.

The statute does not assign enforcement to the Secretary of State. Under subsection E, an action may be brought by the attorney general, a district attorney, a depicted individual who is falsely represented, a candidate for office who has been injured or is likely to be injured, or an organization that represents the interests of voters who are likely to be misled.

Implementation

Separately from any enforcement role, the New Mexico Secretary of State launched a statewide public education campaign ahead of the 2024 elections to inform voters about AI's influence in political communications. The campaign included resources to help voters identify potentially AI-generated content and understand their rights under the new law.

New Mexico joined a growing number of states (now over 20) that have enacted laws requiring transparency around AI-generated political content.

The Proposed New Mexico Artificial Intelligence Act (HB 60)

The most ambitious AI legislation proposed in New Mexico was House Bill 60, the New Mexico Artificial Intelligence Act, introduced during the 2025 regular session by Rep. Christine Chandler along with Representatives Andrea Romero, Debra Sarinana, Linda Trujillo, and Heather Berghmans.

Risk-Based Framework

HB 60 took a risk-based approach modeled on the Colorado AI Act but with significant improvements. The bill defined "high-risk AI systems" as those making or materially supporting "consequential decisions" in several regulated areas.

These regulated areas included employment and employment-related decisions, educational enrollment and opportunities, financial services and lending, healthcare services and coverage, housing and real estate transactions, insurance underwriting and claims, and legal services.

Developer Requirements

AI developers would have been required to maintain documentation about training data, known limitations, and intended uses. The bill mandated that developers provide deployers with sufficient information to conduct impact assessments and ensure compliance.

Deployer Requirements

Entities deploying high-risk AI systems would have been required to inform consumers when they are interacting with an AI system. The bill required deployers to provide consumers the right to appeal any consequential decision made by an AI system with an actual human decision-maker.

Deployers would also have been required to maintain risk management policies addressing algorithmic discrimination, conduct impact assessments at regular intervals, and publish notices on their websites summarizing the AI systems they use.

Enforcement

The bill provided for enforcement by both the state attorney general and private individuals. This dual enforcement mechanism would have given consumers direct legal recourse against companies deploying non-compliant AI systems. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) testified in support of the bill, praising its strong consumer protection provisions.

Status

HB 60 was introduced but died on February 25, 2025, without advancing to a floor vote. Rep. Chandler has indicated she plans to reintroduce a revised version in future legislative sessions. The bill's effective date, had it passed, would have been July 1, 2026.

Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act (HB 141, 2026)

On January 15, 2026, Attorney General Raul Torrez and Rep. Linda Serrato announced the Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act (AI2A), introduced as HB 141 during the 2026 legislative session.

Digital Watermarking Requirements

The AI2A's most distinctive feature was its requirement that providers of generative AI services, large online platforms, and device manufacturers embed latent digital markers in AI-generated images, audio, and video. These markers would enable victims and law enforcement to track the content's production and dissemination.

Civil Penalties for Companies

Companies that fail to comply with the technical provisions of the act would face fines of up to $15,000 per violation for every day of non-compliance. The Attorney General would be empowered to bring enforcement actions.

Private Right of Action for Victims

The AI2A would create civil liability for individuals who knowingly produce or distribute malicious synthetic content. Victims of deepfakes would be able to sue perpetrators and recover actual damages or $1,000 per impression, whichever is greater.

Catalyst Case

AG Torrez cited the January 13, 2026, arrest of Albuquerque resident Richard Gallagher as a driving force behind the legislation. Gallagher was accused of using AI to manipulate innocent photographs into sexually explicit images, marking the first case of its kind in New Mexico. Torrez called the case a "wake up call" about the need for AI accountability.

Status

HB 141 was introduced on January 22, 2026, but did not advance before the 30-day session adjourned on February 19, 2026. The bill is expected to be reintroduced in the 2027 60-day session.

Artificial Intelligence Transparency Act (HB 28, 2026)

Rep. Chandler also introduced HB 28, the Artificial Intelligence Transparency Act, during the 2026 session. This bill represented a pared-down version of the 2025 HB 60, focused specifically on consumer transparency requirements.

The bill was referred to the House Rules and Order of Business Committee but did not advance during the session. Like HB 141, it is expected to be reintroduced in future sessions.

Government Use of AI Transparency Act (HB 184, 2024)

House Bill 184, the Government Use of Artificial Intelligence Transparency Act, was introduced during the 2024 regular session to establish transparency requirements for state government use of AI systems.

Proposed Requirements

The bill would have required each state agency to submit an inventory of its AI systems by October 1, 2024, and annually thereafter. Required disclosures included the name of the system and vendor, a description of capabilities and uses, whether the system was used to make or inform consequential decisions, and whether the system had been assessed using local data.

The Department of Information Technology would have compiled aggregate inventory reports for the governor and the legislative finance committee. The bill included a $500,000 appropriation for implementation.

Status

HB 184 passed through two House committees but was postponed indefinitely on February 3, 2024, effectively killing the bill before it reached the House floor. The concepts in HB 184 have been incorporated into subsequent proposals.

AI and Employment in New Mexico

New Mexico has not enacted specific legislation governing the use of AI in employment decisions. There are no state requirements for bias audits of automated hiring tools, mandatory disclosure of AI use in recruitment, or algorithmic impact assessments for workplace AI systems.

However, New Mexico's existing employment discrimination laws apply to AI-powered employment decisions. The New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMSA 1978, Section 28-1-7) prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, and disability. If an AI hiring tool produces discriminatory outcomes along these protected characteristics, an employer could face liability under the Human Rights Act.

The proposed HB 60 (2025) would have specifically addressed AI in employment by requiring transparency, impact assessments, and human appeal rights for consequential employment decisions made by AI systems. These provisions may be reintroduced in future legislation.

Healthcare AI Regulation

New Mexico does not have comprehensive legislation governing AI in healthcare. However, the state has taken steps to address AI use by healthcare professionals.

Mental Health Provider AI Ethics Rules

Effective November 18, 2025, New Mexico implemented regulations on the ethical use of AI by counselors, therapists, and other mental health providers. These rules establish professional standards for mental health practitioners who incorporate AI tools into their practice.

The regulations address issues such as informed consent when AI is used in treatment planning, the limits of AI-assisted diagnosis, and the obligation to maintain human oversight of clinical decisions. Mental health professionals who violate these standards may face disciplinary action from their respective licensing boards.

HB 60's Healthcare Provisions

The proposed New Mexico Artificial Intelligence Act (HB 60) would have classified healthcare AI systems as "high-risk" when used for consequential decisions about healthcare services and coverage. Had it passed, the bill would have required transparency about AI systems used in medical settings and given patients the right to appeal AI-assisted healthcare decisions to a human provider.

Federal AI Policy and New Mexico

Executive Order 14365

On December 11, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14365, establishing federal policy intended to limit state AI regulation. The order creates a DOJ AI Litigation Task Force, directs the FTC to identify state laws preempted by federal authority, and threatens to withhold federal funding from states with certain AI regulations.

New Mexico's Response

Attorney General Torrez has been one of the most vocal state officials opposing federal AI preemption efforts. When announcing the AI2A legislation in January 2026, Torrez asserted that New Mexico is "empowered by the U.S. Constitution to protect its citizens" from AI-related harms, regardless of federal executive action.

Torrez has also publicly opposed congressional efforts to restrict state AI laws, arguing that states must retain the authority to protect consumers in areas where federal regulation is absent or insufficient.

Practical Impact

The executive order's carve-outs for child safety, state government AI procurement, and data center infrastructure preserve some of New Mexico's regulatory authority. However, the broader consumer protection provisions in bills like HB 60 and HB 141 could face federal challenge if enacted. Until Congress passes preemptive legislation or courts rule on the matter, existing state laws like HB 182 remain enforceable.

Looking Ahead: New Mexico's AI Regulatory Future

New Mexico's AI regulatory landscape is likely to evolve significantly in coming legislative sessions. Several factors will shape the state's approach.

The 2027 legislative session will be a 60-day session, providing more time for substantive policy legislation. Both the AI Transparency Act and the AI Accountability Act are expected to be reintroduced with revisions informed by the 2026 session's committee feedback.

Rep. Chandler and AG Torrez represent complementary approaches. Chandler's transparency-focused framework addresses the deployment of high-risk AI systems across multiple sectors, while Torrez's accountability framework targets the creation and distribution of synthetic media. A combined approach could give New Mexico one of the most comprehensive AI regulatory frameworks in the country.

The federal-state tension over AI regulation will continue to shape legislative strategy. New Mexico lawmakers may design future bills to fall within the carve-outs in Executive Order 14365, focusing on consumer protection and child safety provisions that are less vulnerable to federal preemption challenges.

More New Mexico Laws

Explore other New Mexico law topics on Recording Law:

• New Mexico Recording Laws
• New Mexico Data Privacy Laws
• New Mexico Whistleblower Laws
• New Mexico Background Check Laws
• New Mexico Sexting Laws