On December 11, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled, “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence.” The Executive Order is designed to address the proliferation of state laws concerning artificial intelligence. The National Conference of State Legislatures has a database tracking state laws introduced in state legislatures generally concerning artificial intelligence. There are over 1,000 laws introduced in state legislatures in 2025 alone related generally to artificial intelligence in that database (many of those laws were not enacted or are pending). And, that database does not include separately tracked artificial intelligence legislation concerning specific technology such as autonomous vehicles, deep fakes or facial recognition. What are the positives of such state legislation? Some include the following, first, it is much harder for an industry to capture 50 state legislatures than one U.S. Congress. Second, as laboratories of democracy, states can create legislation concerning artificial intelligence that are tried out and perhaps be a good model for federal adoption. The Trump Executive Order states, in relevant part:
Section 1. Purpose.
United States leadership in Artificial Intelligence (AI) will promote United
States national and economic security and dominance across many domains.
Pursuant to Executive Order 14179 of January 23, 2025 (Removing Barriers to
American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence), I revoked my predecessor’s
attempt to paralyze this industry and directed my Administration to remove
barriers to United States AI leadership. My Administration has already
done tremendous work to advance that objective, including by updating existing
Federal regulatory frameworks to remove barriers to and encourage adoption of
AI applications across sectors. These efforts have already delivered
tremendous benefits to the American people and led to trillions of dollars of
investments across the country. But we remain in the earliest days of
this technological revolution and are in a race with adversaries for supremacy
within it.
To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate
without cumbersome regulation. But excessive State regulation thwarts
this imperative. First, State-by-State regulation by definition creates a
patchwork of 50 different regulatory regimes that makes compliance more
challenging, particularly for start-ups. Second, State laws are
increasingly responsible for requiring entities to embed ideological bias
within models. For example, a new Colorado law banning “algorithmic discrimination”
may even force AI models to produce false results in order to avoid a
“differential treatment or impact” on protected groups. Third, State laws
sometimes impermissibly regulate beyond State borders, impinging on interstate
commerce.
My Administration must act with the Congress to ensure that
there is a minimally burdensome national standard — not 50 discordant State
ones. The resulting framework must forbid State laws that conflict with
the policy set forth in this order. That framework should also ensure
that children are protected, censorship is prevented, copyrights are respected,
and communities are safeguarded. A carefully crafted national framework
can ensure that the United States wins the AI race, as we must.
Until such a national standard exists, however, it is
imperative that my Administration takes action to check the most onerous and
excessive laws emerging from the States that threaten to stymie innovation.
Sec. 2. Policy. It
is the policy of the United States to sustain and enhance the United States’
global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework
for AI.
Sec. 3. AI Litigation Task
Force. Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General
shall establish an AI Litigation Task Force (Task Force) whose sole
responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws inconsistent with the policy
set forth in section 2 of this order, including on grounds that such laws
unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce, are preempted by existing
Federal regulations, or are otherwise unlawful in the Attorney General’s
judgment, including, if appropriate, those laws identified pursuant to section
4 of this order. The Task Force shall consult from time to time with the
Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, the Assistant to the President for Science
and Technology, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and the
Assistant to the President and Counsel to the President regarding the emergence
of specific State AI laws that warrant challenge.
Sec. 4. Evaluation of State
AI Laws. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of
Commerce, consistent with the Secretary’s authorities under 47 U.S.C. 902(b),
shall, in consultation with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, the
Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Assistant to the President
for Science and Technology, and the Assistant to the President and Counsel to
the President, publish an evaluation of existing State AI laws that identifies
onerous laws that conflict with the policy set forth in section 2 of this
order, as well as laws that should be referred to the Task Force established
pursuant to section 3 of this order. That evaluation of State AI laws
shall, at a minimum, identify laws that require AI models to alter their
truthful outputs, or that may compel AI developers or deployers to disclose or
report information in a manner that would violate the First Amendment or any
other provision of the Constitution. The evaluation may additionally
identify State laws that promote AI innovation consistent with the policy set
forth in section 2 of this order.
Sec. 5. Restrictions on
State Funding. (a) Within 90 days of the date of this order,
the Secretary of Commerce, through the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Communications and Information, shall issue a Policy Notice specifying the
conditions under which States may be eligible for remaining funding under the
Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program that was saved through my
Administration’s “Benefit of the Bargain” reforms, consistent with 47 U.S.C.
1702(e)-(f). That Policy Notice must provide that States with onerous AI
laws identified pursuant to section 4 of this order are ineligible for
non-deployment funds, to the maximum extent allowed by Federal law. The
Policy Notice must also describe how a fragmented State regulatory landscape
for AI threatens to undermine BEAD-funded deployments, the growth of AI
applications reliant on high-speed networks, and BEAD’s mission of delivering
universal, high-speed connectivity.
(b) Executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall
assess their discretionary grant programs in consultation with the Special
Advisor for AI and Crypto and determine whether agencies may condition such
grants on States either not enacting an AI law that conflicts with the policy
of this order, including any AI law identified pursuant to section 4 or
challenged pursuant to section 3 of this order, or, for those States that have
enacted such laws, on those States entering into a binding agreement with the
relevant agency not to enforce any such laws during the performance period in
which it receives the discretionary funding.
Sec. 6. Federal Reporting
and Disclosure Standard. Within 90 days of the publication of the
identification specified in section 4 of this order, the Chairman of the
Federal Communications Commission shall, in consultation with the Special
Advisor for AI and Crypto, initiate a proceeding to determine whether to adopt
a Federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that preempts
conflicting State laws.
Sec. 7. Preemption of State
Laws Mandating Deceptive Conduct in AI Models. Within 90 days of the
date of this order, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission shall, in
consultation with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, issue a policy
statement on the application of the Federal Trade Commission Act’s prohibition
on unfair and deceptive acts or practices under 15 U.S.C. 45 to AI
models. That policy statement must explain the circumstances under which
State laws that require alterations to the truthful outputs of AI models are
preempted by the Federal Trade Commission Act’s prohibition on engaging in
deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce.
Sec. 8. Legislation.
(a) The Special Advisor for AI and Crypto and the Assistant to the
President for Science and Technology shall jointly prepare a legislative
recommendation establishing a uniform Federal policy framework for AI that
preempts State AI laws that conflict with the policy set forth in this order.
(b) The legislative recommendation called for in
subsection (a) of this section shall not propose preempting otherwise lawful
State AI laws relating to:
(i) child safety protections;
(ii) AI compute and data center infrastructure,
other than generally applicable permitting reforms;
(iii) State government procurement and use of AI; and
(iv) other topics as shall be determined.
Sec. 9. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise
affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive
department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative
proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with
applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
No comments:
Post a Comment