White House pauses draft order to preempt state AI laws: what legal teams should know
The White House has paused a draft executive order that would have moved to blunt state artificial intelligence laws through federal litigation and potential funding conditions, according to two sources. The pause doesn't end the idea; it signals a recalibration after clear signs of political and legal blowback.
The draft would have tested aggressive theories on preemption and interstate commerce while leveraging federal grants to influence state policy. Expect the issue to resurface through legislation, agency guidance, or a revised order.
What the draft order proposed
The document would have directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to create an "AI Litigation Task Force" focused on challenging state AI laws. The theories previewed included unconstitutional regulation of interstate commerce and preemption by existing federal regulations.
It also would have instructed the Department of Commerce to review state laws and issue guidelines that, in some cases, could withhold broadband funds. That puts the $42 billion Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program squarely in play.
The legal levers: preemption, commerce, and funding conditions
Preemption: An executive order can coordinate litigation, but it can't manufacture preemption on its own. Without a governing federal statute or regulation that conflicts with state AI rules, preemption claims are an uphill climb. Expect arguments that certain state provisions impede federal objectives, but the statutory hook matters.
Interstate commerce: Challenges would likely lean on the Dormant Commerce Clause, arguing state AI rules burden interstate markets or have extraterritorial effects. That path is fact-intensive and not a guaranteed win, especially where states frame laws as classic consumer protection.
Funding leverage: Conditioning BEAD funds on state AI policy raises Spending Clause questions. Conditions must be clear, related to the program, and not coercive. Think of the guardrails from South Dakota v. Dole and NFIB v. Sebelius. Agencies would also face Administrative Procedure Act risk if they shift grant terms without proper process.
Congressional posture and state resistance
Earlier this year, the Senate voted 99-1 against an effort that would have penalized states for regulating AI. Lawmakers in both parties-along with several state attorneys general-argued that states need room to address fraud, deepfakes, and child sexual abuse material.
This week, momentum returned when the administration backed a push to add a similar preemption-style measure to the National Defense Authorization Act. Industry leaders including Google, OpenAI, and Andreessen Horowitz continue to support federal preemption to avoid a patchwork of requirements.
Political signals you should not ignore
Marjorie Taylor Greene opposed the draft order, saying states must retain authority over AI policy and that federalism must be preserved. Senator Amy Klobuchar called the draft "unlawful," arguing it would undermine state guardrails and threaten rural broadband.
Public Citizen's Robert Weissman framed the idea as favoring Big Tech despite documented harms. The bipartisan pushback tells you where litigation and negotiations will start.
What the pause means now
A pause buys time. It suggests the White House sees legal risk, political cost, or both. It does not close the door on executive action, agency guidance, or a legislative rider that accomplishes similar goals with a stronger footing.
For counsel, this is the window to stress-test compliance plans and litigation strategies before the next move arrives.
Action checklist for legal teams
- Map current and pending state AI laws your products or clients touch (deepfakes, consumer protection, child safety, data governance).
- Audit your BEAD exposure: grant terms, subrecipient agreements, and any state conditions that could be targeted by new guidance.
- Draft playbooks for both sides of the "patchwork" fight: preemption and Dormant Commerce Clause arguments on one hand; police-power and consumer protection defenses on the other.
- Track Commerce/NTIA signals for any attempt to condition broadband funds on AI policy; prepare APA comments and challenges.
- Coordinate with multi-state coalitions: whether you're an AI vendor, ISP, or AG office, the next move will likely be collective.
- Monitor NDAA negotiations and any riders that tie AI regulation to defense or infrastructure priorities.
Bottom line
The administration tested a hard-line approach to preempt state AI laws and pulled back-for now. The core questions remain: how far the federal government can go without new legislation, and how much leverage it can assert through grants.
Plan for both outcomes: a negotiated federal baseline that leaves room for states, or a renewed bid to centralize control. Either way, your recordkeeping, grant compliance, and constitutional arguments should be ready.
If your team needs a fast way to build AI literacy for policy and risk work, see this resource: AI courses by job.
Your membership also unlocks:
