Publication

16 December 2025

New Executive Order Promotes “Minimally Burdensome” Federal Regulation of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Seeking Broad Preemption of Conflicting State AI Laws

On December 11, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled, “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence” (the “AI Order”). Among the stated goals of the new AI Order are to:

  • Win the “AI race” by promoting United States AI dominance, national security and economic interests
  • Establish a “minimally burdensome” national standard for the regulation of AI technologies in lieu of a “patchwork” of State laws
  • Remove barriers to, and encourage adoption of, AI technologies
  • Reduce the extent to which State AI laws may influence outputs from AI technologies (e.g., by regulating “algorithmic discrimination” or “embed[ding] ideological bias”)
  • Develop a framework that ensures that “children are protected, censorship is prevented, copyrights are respected, and communities are safeguarded”

Following multiple unsuccessful efforts in Congress to pass a moratorium on State and local AI laws, the AI Order seeks to advance President Trump’s proposed AI policies and objectives through the following initiatives:

  • Within 30 days, establish an AI Litigation Task Force at DOJ to challenge State AI laws – likely as preempted by Federal regulation and/or as unconstitutional burdens on interstate commerce – to the extent inconsistent with the above policy goals
  • Within 90 days, publish an evaluation of existing State AI laws, identifying where those laws are inconsistent with or, alternatively, promote the above policy goals
  • Within 90 days, issue a Policy Notice specifying conditions under which States may be eligible for remaining Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program funding and prioritizing funding for States whose AI laws promote the above policy goals
  • Within 90 days, issue a Policy Statement on the application of the Federal Trade Commission’s prohibition on “unfair and deceptive acts or practices” to AI models, with an emphasis on State AI laws that require “alterations to … truthful outputs”
  • Generally, evaluate the extent to which executive departments and agencies may condition discretionary grants to States based on the alignment of their AI laws with the above policy goals
  • Initiate a proceeding to determine whether or not to adopt a Federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that preempts conflicting State laws

The AI Order also directs the President’s Special Advisor for AI and Crypto and the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology to prepare a legislative recommendation establishing a uniform Federal policy framework for AI that preempts State AI laws in conflict with the AI Order.  However, the AI Order directs that this proposed policy framework not preempt 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.”

It is unclear to what extent the AI Order will deter States (or, in some cases, cities) from implementing and enforcing their own AI laws.  A number of States, such as California, Colorado and New York, have already adopted substantive AI laws, while other States – led by Governors from both parties – are fast on their heels.  Some State lawmakers and legal commentators believe the AI Order currently lacks sufficient Constitutional and/or Federal statutory authority for the breadth of preemption sought, likely raising multifaceted and nuanced Federalism questions in prospective litigation.

While the AI Order is unlikely to affect most businesses in the near-term, the debate among and within the Federal government, State and local governments, consumer advocacy groups and industry concerns will swell as AI tools, investments and workplace impacts proliferate against the backdrop of industry advocacy for “minimally burdensome” Federal legislation.  The attendant political, economic, ethical and safety considerations are dynamic, not always falling neatly on existing ideological lines.  As a result, the regulation (or deregulation) of artificial intelligence will remain an important, complex and fascinating area of law and policy to monitor for the foreseeable future.

Questions
If you have questions, please contact Erik Daly.