Trump Executive Order Seeks to Rein in State AI Laws, Drawing Pushback From States & Lawmakers

Key Takeaways

• Federal Preemption Push: President Trump’s executive order directs federal agencies to challenge and potentially preempt state AI laws deemed inconsistent with a new, minimally burdensome national AI policy.
• DOJ and Agency Action: The order creates an AI Litigation Task Force at the Department of Justice and tasks Commerce, the FCC, and the FTC with reviewing state AI laws and exploring federal standards that could override them.
• Funding Leverage: States identified as having conflicting AI laws could face restrictions on certain federal funding, including non-deployment funds under the BEAD broadband program.
• State and Congressional Pushback: California officials and Democratic lawmakers argue the order could weaken existing consumer and privacy protections without establishing federal replacements.
• Legislative Uncertainty: The order coincides with renewed congressional debate over a nationwide moratorium on state AI laws, an approach previously rejected by the Senate.

Deep Dive

President Donald Trump recently signed a sweeping executive order aimed at curbing state-level regulation of artificial intelligence, framing the move as necessary to preserve U.S. competitiveness and prevent what the administration describes as a fragmented and burdensome regulatory landscape.

The order, titled Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence, directs multiple federal agencies to identify, challenge, and potentially preempt state AI laws that conflict with a new federal policy favoring minimal regulatory constraints on AI development and deployment.

Under the order, the administration argues that state-by-state regulation creates compliance challenges for AI companies, particularly startups, and may interfere with interstate commerce. The White House also contends that some state laws could require AI systems to alter truthful outputs or embed ideological bias, raising constitutional concerns.

The executive action positions AI policy as a matter of national economic and security interest, emphasizing what the administration describes as a race with foreign adversaries to maintain technological leadership. It follows the revocation earlier this year of a prior executive order that had imposed broader federal oversight of AI systems.

DOJ Task Force and Federal Review of State Laws

A central feature of the order is the creation of an AI Litigation Task Force within the Department of Justice. The Attorney General is directed to establish the task force within 30 days, with a mandate to challenge state AI laws deemed inconsistent with federal policy. The task force may argue that such laws unlawfully regulate interstate commerce, are preempted by existing federal authority, or violate constitutional protections.

In parallel, the Department of Commerce is instructed to publish, within 90 days, an evaluation of existing state AI laws. That review is expected to identify laws considered “onerous,” including those that may compel AI developers to alter outputs or disclose information in ways that could raise First Amendment concerns. The evaluation may also highlight state laws viewed as supportive of AI innovation.

The order further directs the Federal Communications Commission to consider whether to establish a federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that would override conflicting state requirements. The Federal Trade Commission is tasked with issuing guidance on when state laws mandating changes to AI outputs could be preempted under federal prohibitions on unfair or deceptive practices.

Funding Conditions and Legislative Push

Beyond litigation and regulatory review, the order links federal funding to state AI policy. States identified as having conflicting AI laws could become ineligible for certain non-deployment funds under the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program, to the extent permitted by law. Federal agencies are also instructed to assess whether discretionary grants can be conditioned on states refraining from enforcing AI laws that conflict with federal policy.

The administration is also calling for legislation to establish a uniform national AI framework. Senior White House advisors are directed to prepare a legislative proposal that would preempt conflicting state AI laws, while preserving state authority in specific areas such as child safety, state procurement, and AI infrastructure permitting.

California and State Officials Push Back

The executive order has drawn staunch opposition from California officials, who argue that the federal approach would weaken existing consumer protections without offering a federal replacement.

The California Privacy Protection Agency said recent federal efforts, including the executive order and a separate push in Congress to impose a nationwide moratorium on state AI laws, could undermine state-level safeguards governing artificial intelligence and automated decision-making technology.

California recently finalized regulations under the California Consumer Privacy Act governing consumer access and opt-out rights related to automated decision-making systems. State officials argue that these rules demonstrate the ability of states to respond more quickly than Congress to emerging AI risks.

Governor Gavin Newsom also criticized the order, saying California has sought to balance innovation with protections for consumers and vulnerable populations, including children and older adults.

Congressional Reaction and NDAA Debate

On Capitol Hill, the executive order arrives amid renewed debate over whether Congress should limit state AI regulation. House leadership is reportedly seeking to attach a nationwide moratorium on state AI and automated decision-making laws to the National Defense Authorization Act, a must-pass annual defense bill.

A similar proposal introduced earlier this year would have barred states from enforcing AI laws for five years but was rejected in the Senate by a 99–1 vote.

Representative Don Beyer (D-Va.), co-chair of the bipartisan Congressional Artificial Intelligence Caucus, said the executive order undermines state-led safety efforts in the absence of comprehensive federal regulation. Beyer argued that states have stepped in due to congressional inaction and raised constitutional concerns about federal efforts to coerce states into suspending enforcement of their laws.

Beyer said he is exploring legislative responses to the order, noting continued bipartisan opposition to a broad moratorium on state AI regulation.

Uncertain Legal and Policy Outlook

The executive order sets in motion a series of legal, regulatory, and funding-related actions that could reshape the balance of power between federal and state governments on AI oversight. While the administration frames the effort as necessary to promote innovation and national competitiveness, opponents argue it risks stripping away existing protections before a federal framework is in place.

Legal challenges to both the executive order and any resulting enforcement actions are widely expected, particularly as federal agencies begin reviewing state laws and conditioning funding eligibility.

For now, the order marks a significant escalation in the debate over how artificial intelligence should be governed in the United States and whether that authority should primarily rest with Washington or the states.

The GRC Report is your premier destination for the latest in governance, risk, and compliance news. As your reliable source for comprehensive coverage, we ensure you stay informed and ready to navigate the dynamic landscape of GRC. Beyond being a news source, the GRC Report represents a thriving community of professionals who, like you, are dedicated to GRC excellence. Explore our insightful articles and breaking news, and actively participate in the conversation to enhance your GRC journey.