Trump's AI Executive Order: Federal Uniformity vs. State Authority
President Donald Trump's December 2025 executive order on artificial intelligence (AI) pushes hard for national uniformity. It directs federal agencies to review, challenge, and potentially override state AI rules the administration views as "onerous" or inconsistent with federal policy. The move elevates federal control over AI policy and sets up a clash with states that have moved ahead on privacy, transparency, and bias rules.
The stated goal: reduce friction for AI development, strengthen national security, and sharpen U.S. competitiveness against rivals like China. The risk: preempting state protections without a clear statutory basis could put the order on shaky legal ground and weaken consumer safeguards.
What the Order Does
The order, "Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence," directs the Secretary of Commerce to evaluate state AI laws within 90 days and identify conflicts with federal policy. It carves out exceptions for child safety, state procurement, and infrastructure permitting.
The FCC and FTC are instructed to clarify federal standards that may preempt state requirements on disclosure and viewpoint. Within 180 days, agencies must deliver an action plan focused on human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security. The order also bars federal acquisition of AI systems deemed to exhibit "ideological bias."
Federalism and Preemption: The Legal Fault Lines
An executive order cannot, by itself, displace state law. Preemption rests on the Supremacy Clause and typically requires an act of Congress or valid agency rules grounded in clear statutory authority. Expect immediate arguments over whether federal agencies have the authority to issue rules that effectively cancel state-level AI governance.
Courts will scrutinize any agency moves under the Administrative Procedure Act and recent doctrine. With Chevron deference curtailed, judges will not default to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Broad, economy-wide assertions of authority could trigger the major questions doctrine, demanding explicit congressional authorization.
Conditioning federal funds to push states into compliance can raise Spending Clause concerns if the conditions are coercive. Threats to cut broadband or related funding may draw challenges similar to those seen in NFIB v. Sebelius. And while the DOJ can sue states over laws that unduly burden interstate commerce, that path is fact-intensive and far from guaranteed.
For a primer on federal preemption, see the Supremacy Clause overview at LII. On diminished judicial deference to agencies, see Loper Bright v. Raimondo.
Innovation, Human Rights, and Consumer Protection
Supporters argue a single federal playbook simplifies compliance and lets firms ship products faster, strengthening the U.S. against global competitors. The action plan emphasizes infrastructure build-out, deregulation, national security, and competition with China.
Critics warn that sidelining state standards could weaken safeguards against bias, privacy violations, and opaque algorithms. Concerns also center on the order's "ideological bias" procurement ban, which could be vague in practice and invite viewpoint-discrimination claims. States will argue they remain essential laboratories for testing protections as AI systems touch hiring, housing, healthcare, education, and public services.
Where Lawsuits Will Focus
- Authority: Do existing statutes clearly authorize agencies to preempt state AI rules at scale?
- Procedure: Are agency actions supported by a solid record, reasoned analysis, and proper notice-and-comment?
- Federalism: Does the order overstep by coercing states through funding conditions or by directing independent agencies beyond presidential reach?
- Commerce Clause: Do targeted state laws burden interstate commerce enough to justify DOJ challenges?
- First Amendment: How will "ideological bias" procurement limits interact with viewpoint, disclosure, or content-based restrictions?
Action Items for Government and Legal Teams
For State Attorneys General, Legislators, and Counsel
- Inventory current and pending AI statutes and rules; flag areas likely targeted for conflict preemption.
- Prepare litigation strategies (APA, Spending Clause, Tenth Amendment, Dormant Commerce Clause defenses) and coordinate multistate positions.
- Refine state statutes to reduce direct conflicts while preserving core protections in privacy, discrimination, and auditability.
For Federal Agencies
- Assess statutory hooks before proposing any preemptive rules; map authority to specific sections Congress enacted.
- Build defensible records with clear cost-benefit analysis, defined terms (e.g., "ideological bias"), and alternatives considered.
- Respect independence constraints for the FCC and FTC; use coordination rather than directives where required by law.
For Corporate Counsel and Public Sector Vendors
- Maintain a dual-track compliance map: existing state requirements plus anticipated federal baselines.
- Update procurement representations and warranties around bias testing, model documentation, and audit access.
- Stand up incident response and model risk management that work across jurisdictions; retain third-party audit capacity.
What to Watch Next
- The 90-day Commerce review identifying state-law conflicts and proposed remedies.
- FTC/FCC moves on disclosure and viewpoint standards, and whether they proceed via guidance or rulemaking.
- Early injunction battles in federal court and the scope of any stays.
- Congressional response-authorization bills, oversight hearings, or attempts to limit agency spending for implementation.
- State legislative sessions adapting AI bills to withstand preemption claims.
Uniform rules may help with compliance, but preemption without clear congressional backing is a litigation magnet. Expect a protracted contest between federal ambitions and state prerogatives while agencies test the limits of their authority and courts set the outer boundaries.
If your policy or legal team needs a fast overview of AI risks, audits, and compliance topics by role, this catalog can help: AI courses by job.
Your membership also unlocks:
