The Trump administration has issued an executive order aimed at limiting or preempting state-level regulations concerning artificial intelligence (AI). The order, signed by President Trump, outlines mechanisms for the federal government to address state AI legislation and seeks to consolidate AI oversight at a national level. The administration cites the need for a unified approach to AI policy to foster innovation and maintain the United States' competitive position in the global AI industry, particularly in relation to China. The order has drawn criticism from some state officials and advocacy groups, who argue that state laws are necessary for protecting residents and that the administration may lack the authority to restrict state regulation without congressional action.
Overview of the Executive Order
The executive order, issued on a Thursday, provides directives intended to influence the landscape of AI regulation across states. President Trump stated the objective is to establish "one central source of approval" for AI governance. White House AI adviser David Sacks clarified that the administration's focus would be on addressing "the most onerous examples of state regulations" and that regulations concerning children's safety in AI would not be opposed.
Key Directives
The executive order includes several specific directives:
- AI Litigation Task Force: The Justice Department is instructed to establish an "AI Litigation Task Force." This task force is mandated to initiate lawsuits against states concerning their AI-related legislation.
- Agency Collaboration: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are directed to collaborate with the Justice Department. This collaboration is intended to follow the White House's AI action plan to navigate state and local regulations identified as "onerous."
- Federal Funding Review: Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is directed to investigate the Commerce Department's authority to withhold federal rural broadband funding from states that have enacted AI laws considered unfavorable by the administration.
- Congressional Engagement: David Sacks is also directed to work with Congress to draft new legislation related to AI.
Administration's Rationale and Industry Perspective
The administration's stated rationale for the executive order includes the need for a unified national approach to AI policy. President Trump drew a comparison to China's centralized decision-making regarding policy implementation, stating, "We have to be unified." The administration has cited competitive pressure with China as a reason for pursuing less regulation of the AI industry.
Leaders of AI companies, including major developers such as OpenAI, Google, Meta, and Anthropic, have advocated for uniform, federal AI legislation. They argue that a patchwork of varied state-level regulations could impede innovation and hinder the United States' competitive standing in the global AI industry. These companies have invested significant capital into AI development.
State Regulations and Opposition
Despite the absence of comprehensive federal AI regulation, numerous states have enacted their own laws. These state-level regulations include measures such as prohibiting the creation of nonconsensual nude images using AI, mandating disclosure of AI usage by government agencies and businesses, requiring checks for algorithmic discrimination, and protecting whistleblowers.
The executive order has been met with opposition from several state officials and advocacy groups.
- California: Governor Gavin Newsom, whose state is home to numerous technology companies, criticized the order. California has existing AI regulations, including legislation signed by Governor Newsom requiring major AI developers to outline strategies for mitigating risks associated with their AI models. Governor Newsom has previously suggested that California's law could serve as a model for federal legislation.
- Other States: Colorado and New York are among other states that have enacted laws regulating AI development.
- Advocacy Groups: Critics contend that state laws are necessary, particularly in the absence of comprehensive federal safeguards. Julie Scelfo, representing the advocacy group Mothers Against Media Addiction, stated that preventing states from enacting their own AI safeguards affects their ability to protect residents. Michael Toscano, director of the Family First Technology Initiative at the Institute for Family Studies, characterized the order as a "lost opportunity." Adam Billen, vice president of Encode, expressed concern about a potential "chilling effect" on states' willingness to protect their residents, suggesting it could create legal uncertainty benefiting companies.
Legal and Political Scrutiny
The executive order is anticipated to face legal challenges. Tech policy researchers suggest that the Trump administration may lack the authority to restrict state regulation without specific legislation passed by Congress.
- Legal Arguments: John Bergmayer, legal director of Public Knowledge, argued that the administration is attempting to bypass Congress and that, legally, the directives may not be effective. He countered the argument that the federal government can override state AI laws solely based on its power to regulate interstate commerce, citing a 2023 Supreme Court decision that upheld a state's right to regulate its industries even if it affects other states.
- Republican Divisions: Within the Republican party, the issue of AI regulation has created divisions. Prior attempts to introduce AI preemption into federal legislation, such as the annual defense spending bill and the reconciliation bill, have previously failed.
- Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) posted on X regarding an attempt to insert AI preemption into the defense spending bill, stating it was a "terrible provision and should remain OUT."
- Governor Spencer Cox (R-UT) stated his preference for an alternative executive order that would not bar state laws, emphasizing that "States must help protect children and families while America accelerates its leadership in AI."
- Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL) posted on X that an executive order "doesn't/can't preempt state legislative action," adding that "Congress could, theoretically, preempt states through legislation."