U.S. President Donald Trump announced intentions to sign an executive order to curb state-level artificial intelligence laws with an eye toward spurring innovation. In an 8 Dec. Truth Social post, Trump said the order will put into place "ONE RULE" that aims to preempt any state-level "approvals" required to develop and deploy AI technologies.
It's not yet clear whether the order, which Trump said he will sign in the coming days, mirrors a draft order from November seeking similar preemption goals. The leaked draft proposed roles for federal agencies to combat state-level statutes and create new federal rules.
The Department of Justice would launch a task force charged with challenging the constitutionality of state AI laws based on analysis by the Department of Commerce of potentially burdensome legislation. Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission would consider promulgating AI model reporting and disclosure standards while the Federal Trade Commission would draft a policy statement outlining how the FTC Act preempts state deception statutes that apply to 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 RULES and the APPROVAL PROCESS," Trump added in his post.
White House Special Advisor for AI and Crypto David Sacks offered more detail on the forthcoming order after Trump's initial announcement. In a post on the social platform X, Sacks indicated the proposed order would not preempt any state-level AI statutes with protections for children's online safety or creators' copyrights, among other topics deemed vital by the administration.
"This Order will provide the tools necessary for the federal government to push back against the most onerous and excessive state regulation." Sacks wrote. "At the same time, the Administration will continue to work with Congress to define a federal framework that can be enacted through legislation."
Sacks added the proposed order does not represent a moratorium, instead characterizing it as "an attempt to settle a question of jurisdiction" while alleging California, Colorado, Illinois and other Democrat-led states of "ideological meddling" with the anti-discrimination provisions in their respective AI laws.
The Trump administration foreshadowed potential limits on state laws in its AI Action Plan released in July. The plan stated, "The Federal government should not allow AI-related Federal funding to be directed toward states with burdensome AI regulations that waste these funds, but should also not interfere with states' rights to pass prudent laws that are not unduly restrictive to innovation."
Attempts by U.S. Congress to bring the White House's sentiments to life through federal law have not panned out, with the proposed executive order representing an alternative path.
A proposed state AI law moratorium was left out of two congressional funding packages — a reconciliation bill in July and the National Defense Authorization Act more recently. While a majority of House Republicans supported a moratorium, bipartisan opposition in the Senate proved too much of a hurdle in negotiations for both packages.
"This body has proven it cannot legislate on emerging technology," U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said during a 1 July floor speech against the moratorium's inclusion. "It is frustrating. We have not passed online privacy. We have not passed the No Fakes Act, the COPIED Act. There are all of these pieces of legislation dealing with AI that we haven't passed, but you know who has passed it? It is our states."
Responding to Trump's plans for an executive order, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., wrote an op-ed for The New York Times demanding states retain legislative power on AI until Congress can drum up bipartisan legislation to appropriately tackle perceived risks and harms.
"Tech leaders need to understand: There will be safety standards for these products. If they do not want a patchwork of state laws, they should work with Congress to pass comprehensive standards. Until then, states have a right — and a duty — to stand up for their citizens," she wrote.
Joe Duball is the news editor for the IAPP.
