A recent executive order by the Trump Administration seeks to limit state AI regulations.
As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly integrated into our daily lives, lawmakers are debating the best way to regulate this innovative technology. A recent executive order signed by President Donald J. Trump aims to limit the influence states have in that debate.
The order, signed in December 2025, discourages states from adopting or enforcing AI regulations that conflict with federal policy. The order establishes a litigation task force, directs federal agencies to review state and federal laws that restrict AI growth, and even authorizes withholding federal funds from noncompliant states.
Titled Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence, the order seeks to ensure that U.S. AI companies can innovate without “cumbersome regulations.” The order also emphasizes preventing states from regulating AI systems in ways that extend beyond state borders.
To achieve this goal, the AI task force is charged with challenging state AI laws whenever possible. The task force will focus on laws that unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce or conflict with existing federal law.
In support of this effort, the executive order directs the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with other federal officials, to review existing state AI laws and refer potentially unlawful provisions to the task force. The Secretary of Commerce may also withhold funding from the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program—a federal grant program that funds state infrastructure—for states with “onerous” AI regulations.
The executive order assigns additional responsibilities to federal agencies. The Federal Communications Commission must consider whether to adopt a national reporting and disclosure standard for AI models. If adopted, the national standard would override conflicting state requirements. The chairman of the Federal Trade Commission must also issue a policy statement explaining how the Federal Trade Commission Act—a consumer protection law—may apply to AI models.
Another provision of the order seeks to prevent states from imposing what the Administration characterizes as “ideological bias” within AI models. As an example, the order cites a new Colorado law banning “algorithmic discrimination.” The order states that such laws cause AI models to generate “false results” to avoid disparate impacts on protected groups.
The Colorado law—which went into effect February 1, 2026—appears to be the first in the nation to address algorithmic discrimination. The state law addresses bias in AI systems used by businesses and government entities for important decisions, such as hiring, education, and banking, in order to protect consumers.
Finally, the order directs presidential advisors to prepare a legislative recommendation to establish a uniform federal framework for AI regulations that would preempt conflicting state laws.
The executive order includes several narrow exceptions. Any legislative recommendation will not preempt state AI laws related to child safety, AI data center infrastructure, state government use of AI, and other areas, “as shall be determined.”
Any such legislative proposal is likely to face significant opposition in the U.S. Congress. Last year, Republicans split over a proposed federal ban on state AI regulations included in a reconciliation bill. When the issue resurfaced last month, opposition remained. Lawmakers across the ideological spectrum—including U.S. Representatives Chip Roy (R-Tex.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), and U.S. Senators Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)—are among the key lawmakers who have expressed concerns about a federal ban.
State officials have also expressed opposition to a ban on state AI laws. Last year, more than 280 state lawmakers from both parties signed a letter urging Congress to reject any legislation that would ban state AI regulations. A bipartisan coalition of 36 state attorneys general issued similar calls.
“I agree on not overregulating,” South Carolina State Representative Brandon Guffey (R-York) said, “but I don’t believe the federal government has the right to take away my right to protect my constituents if there’s an issue with AI.”
Some critics have questioned the legality of the executive order. Although the President’s AI advisor, David Sacks, suggested that the federal government may override state AI laws under its authority to regulate interstate commerce, others disagree.
“States are, in fact, allowed to regulate interstate commerce,” John Bergmayer, legal director of the nonprofit Public Knowledge, told NPR. “They do it all the time.” Bergmayer referenced the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, in which the Court held that a California law restricting the sale of pork did not impermissibly regulate commerce between the states.
Opponents are expected to file suit in the coming weeks. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said that the state plans to challenge the order in court. California State Senator Scott Wiener (D- San Francisco), the author of California’s recent AI safety bill, has made similar statements.
“If the Trump Administration tries to enforce this ridiculous order, we will see them in court,” Wiener said.
