On December 11, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order, Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (the “Order”), seeking to establish a national policy framework for artificial intelligence (AI), with the stated objective of promoting U.S. leadership and global dominance in AI while preempting conflicting state laws and minimizing regulatory burdens. This action follows prior efforts to remove barriers to AI innovation and responds to concerns that a fragmented state-by-state regulatory landscape impedes compliance, stifles innovation, and threatens national and economic security. This DE Insight examines how the Order reshapes the balance of federal and state authority over AI, the legal battles it is likely to trigger, and the practical consequences for companies, developers, and state governments navigating this shifting regulatory landscape.
Key Provisions of the Executive Order
- Preemption of Conflicting State Laws: The Order asserts that a unified federal approach is necessary to avoid a patchwork of state regulations that complicate compliance, particularly for startups and emerging companies. It specifically targets state laws that require AI models to embed ideological bias or alter truthful outputs, as well as those that impermissibly regulate beyond state borders and impact interstate commerce.
- Establishment of the AI Litigation Task Force: Within 30 days, the Attorney General is directed to create an AI Litigation Task Force. This group will be responsible for challenging state AI laws deemed inconsistent with the federal policy, including those that may be unconstitutional, preempted by federal regulation, or otherwise unlawful. The Task Force also will consult with senior advisors on the emergence of specific state laws warranting challenge.
- Evaluation of State AI Laws: The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with relevant advisors, is tasked with publishing an evaluation of existing state AI laws within 90 days. This evaluation will identify “onerous” laws that conflict with federal policy, particularly those compelling AI models to produce deceptive outputs or requiring disclosures that may violate constitutional protections.
- Restrictions on State Funding: States with identified “onerous” AI laws through the Secretary of Commerce’s evaluation will be ineligible for certain federal funding under the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program, to the extent permitted by law. The Secretary of Commerce will be directed to issue a notice that informs states with such laws of their ineligibility. Federal agencies are also instructed to assess discretionary grant programs and may condition funding on states refraining from enacting or enforcing conflicting AI laws.
- Federal Reporting and Disclosure Standard: The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is directed to consider adopting a federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that would preempt conflicting state requirements within 90 days of the Secretary of Commerce’s state-law evaluation.
- Preemption of State Laws Mandating Deceptive Conduct: The Federal Trade Commission is instructed to issue a policy statement clarifying that state laws requiring alterations to truthful AI outputs may be preempted by the Federal Trade Commission Act’s prohibition on unfair and deceptive acts or practices.
- Legislative Recommendations: The Order calls for the preparation of legislative recommendations to establish a uniform federal policy framework for AI, preempting conflicting state laws. However, certain areas—such as child safety protections, AI infrastructure, state government procurement, and other specified topics—are excluded from preemption.
Implications for Stakeholders
The Order signals a significant shift toward federal preemption in the regulation of AI, with immediate and long-term implications for companies, developers, and state governments. Entities operating in the AI sector should anticipate increased federal oversight and potential legal challenges to state laws that conflict with the new national policy. States with restrictive or ideologically driven AI regulations may face loss of federal funding and litigation. Companies should review their compliance programs in light of the evolving federal framework and monitor further legislative developments.
In summary, the Order aims to foster innovation, protect constitutional rights, and maintain U.S. competitiveness in AI by establishing a minimally burdensome, unified federal regulatory environment and curtailing conflicting state-level interventions. However—as has been the case with similarly sweeping regulatory efforts—states are likely to raise numerous constitutional challenges against the Order, and policy debates are likely to continue in both Congress and federal courts throughout the country. Amid such uncertainty, businesses should be vigilant in their efforts to comply with current AI regulations and restrictions to manage current and future risk while more permanent standards are implemented.
[View source.]
