Trump Administration Issues EO Advancing Federal Preemption of AI Laws

On Thursday, Dec. 11, President Trump released the executive order (EO), “Ensuring A National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” which seeks to limit excessive state regulation of artificial intelligence (AI). The announcement follows months of speculation about whether and how a state preemption standard might advance after its exclusion from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBA) over the summer and its more recent omission from the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Rumors of a potential EO had been circulating for weeks. President Trump revived the speculation with a post on X earlier this week stating that “There must be only One Rulebook if we are going to continue to lead in AI. We are beating ALL COUNTRIES at this point in the race, but that won’t last long if we are going to have 50 states, many of them bad actors, involved in the RULES and APPROVAL PROCESS.” He continued, “I will be doing a ONE RULE Executive Order this week. You can’t expect a company to get 50 Approvals every time they want to do something.”

David Sacks, the Trump administration’s AI and crypto czar, also shared support for the prospect of an EO in a post on X, writing: “When an AI model is developed in state A, trained in state B, inferenced in state C, and delivered over the internet through national telecommunications infrastructure, that is clearly interstate commerce, and exactly the type of economic activity that the Framers of the Constitution intended to reserve for the federal government to regulate.” He pointed to policies in Colorado, California and Illinois as examples of “ideological meddling,” and reiterated that the “4 Cs”—child safety, communities, creators and censorship—would remain safeguarded, emphasizing that any preemption would be limited in scope and not impact local infrastructure or copyright laws.

The technology industry has broadly supported a federal preemption framework, arguing that a patchwork of state-level requirements could hinder AI development. However, several Republican governors, including Ron DeSantis (FL) and Sarah Huckabee Sanders (AR), have expressed concerns about the implications for state authority.

The EO does not directly preempt all state AI laws. Instead, it directs the administration to review state policies that may conflict with federal priorities and instructs key officials to deliver legislative recommendations to Congress for a federal AI regulatory standard. In response to concerns from some Republican lawmakers, President Trump notes in the EO that any federal standard should ensure that “children are protected, censorship is prevented, copyrights are respected and communities are safeguarded.”

A summary of key provisions from the EO is provided below.

Overview

AI Litigation Task Force. The EO directs the creation of an AI Litigation Task Force within 30 days, which will be responsible for challenging state laws that the administration determines are misaligned with its AI policy goals.

Evaluation of Existing Laws. The secretary of commerce, in consultation with other relevant administration officials, is directed to publish an evaluation of existing state laws within 90 days. This evaluation will identify laws deemed overly burdensome and recommend which should be referred to the AI Litigation Task Force. The review is expected to focus on state measures conflicting with the administration’s priorities or that infringe on First Amendment rights.

Discretionary Grant Programs. Within 90 days, the secretary of commerce, through the assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information, is instructed to issue a policy notice outlining eligibility conditions for the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program funding. The notice will specify that states with overly burdensome AI laws are ineligible for non-deployment funds.

Agencies are additionally directed to assess whether other discretionary grant programs can be conditioned on states either: (1) refraining from enacting AI laws that conflict with the administration’s policy goals, or (2) enforcing existing laws that are in conflict.

FCC Directives. Within 90 days of the EO, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must examine the adoption of a federal reporting and discloser standard for AI.

FTC Directives. Within 90 days of the EO, the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is directed to issue a statement regarding the application of the FTC Act’s prohibition on unfair and deceptive practices to AI models.

Legislation. The special advisor for AI and crypto and assistant to the president for science and technology are directed to prepare legislative recommendations for establishing a federal AI policy framework that would preempt state laws. These recommendations are explicitly instructed to not preempt child-safety protections, AI compute and data-center infrastructure, state government procurement and use of AI, and other topics.

Brownstein’s Outlook

Legal challenges are expected, particularly regarding the extent of presidential authority to issue an EO aimed at influencing or limiting state laws. However, as David Sacks and Michael Kratsios begin developing legislative recommendations for a national AI policy framework, stakeholders have a significant opportunity to engage with the administration and offer input on which provisions should be included or excluded to protect key interests. The administration will look to the private sector for guidance on which areas should be safeguarded from preemption and where federal regulation may be necessary to support continued AI innovation and development.

---

THIS DOCUMENT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE YOU WITH GENERAL INFORMATION REGARDING PRESIDENT TRUMP’S AI EO. THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT ARE NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC LEGAL ADVICE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT OR IF YOU NEED LEGAL ADVICE AS TO AN ISSUE, PLEASE CONTACT THE ATTORNEYS LISTED OR YOUR REGULAR BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP ATTORNEY. THIS COMMUNICATION MAY BE CONSIDERED ADVERTISING IN SOME JURISDICTIONS.