The US government's experimentation with AI in rulemaking carries the risk that actions associated with the technology may be overturned in court, former federal officials warn. Several agencies in President Donald Trump's second term are either using or testing AI to help with rulemaking, specifically around managing the voluminous public comment process. That development comes as Trump has pushed officials to roll out AI wherever possible, with his 2025 AI Action Plan calling for faster AI adoption across the government to "serve the public with far greater efficiency and effectiveness." The Centers for Disease Control is among the agencies involved.
The legal vulnerability of AI-assisted rulemaking
The use of AI to process public comments and draft rule language introduces potential legal risks. If a court finds that an agency delegated too much decision-making to an algorithm or failed to properly review AI-generated outputs, the resulting rule could be struck down. Former federal officials said this creates uncertainty for agencies that are moving quickly to adopt AI without established legal precedent guiding its use in this context.
For government employees tasked with implementing these technologies, the core question becomes whether the efficiency gains outweigh the risk of legal challenges. Agencies that rely on AI for Executive & Strategy decisions may need to build stronger oversight processes to ensure their AI-generated work survives judicial scrutiny.
What the Trump administration's AI push means for agencies
The 2025 AI Action Plan explicitly requires faster AI adoption across the government. This directive applies to federal workers, including the staffers processing public input-often thousands of comments on a single proposed rule. AI can accelerate analysis and drafting, but the former officials warn that without clear procedural guardrails, agencies risk legal exposure.
For those working in government, the challenge is balance. You want the efficiency AI offers, but you also need to demonstrate that a human reviewed the output. Agencies that fail to do this could see rules challenged in court.
Why this matters for government professionals
For anyone working in federal rulemaking, procurement, or agency legal teams, the immediate takeaway is that procedural audits around AI use may become standard. Expect new requirements to document how AI was used in each step of the rulemaking process, from comment screening to final draft. The shift to AI-assisted rulemaking may require a shift in how you document your work-more detailed notes on model outputs, validation checks, and human review steps. If you don't establish these processes now, legal challenges later may expose the agency to serious risk.
AI for Government resources are increasingly relevant for officials navigating these challenges, as the technology moves from experimental to operational.
Your membership also unlocks:
