Last week, President Donald Trump reaffirmed his support for the artificial intelligence (AI) industry by signing an executive order designed to prevent individual states from imposing their own regulations on AI technologies. The AI sector has persistently sought this kind of federal intervention, warning that a fragmented landscape of state laws would complicate compliance and hinder innovation. However, this federal move has drawn criticism from a broad spectrum, including prominent conservative figures who advocate for states' rights and express concern over the executive order's implications for their constituents.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Utah Governor Spencer Cox, and numerous Republican lawmakers across various states have voiced their opposition to the executive order, emphasizing their intention to maintain and enforce state AI laws notwithstanding the federal directive. This internal discord has the potential to intensify partisan debates within the Republican Party, notably as next year's midterm elections approach. Some conservative policy experts warn that the administration's actions could create negative optics, potentially alienating key voter bases in Republican-leaning states.
Wesley Hodges, head of technology policy at the Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank, commented on the situation: "For red states, it seems like terrible optics going into the midterms to have the administration potentially sue you. It widens the schism between populists and tech advocates in the conservative movement right now." This remark underscores the growing divide between factions that prioritize technological advancement free from restrictive state laws and those emphasizing traditional conservative principles like sovereignty of state governments.
Amid this backdrop, public opinion surveys reveal that a majority of Americans favor implementing safeguards on AI technologies. In the absence of decisive federal legislation, over one hundred AI-related laws addressing issues such as safety protocols, prevention of deepfakes, and mental health impacts have emerged at the state level. Industry advocates argue that this patchwork of regulations presents significant operational challenges, making it difficult for companies to navigate and comply with multiple, sometimes conflicting, legal requirements.
Several congressional initiatives aimed at preempting state AI laws have faltered. A proposed moratorium on AI-related state legislation included in President Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" was overwhelmingly defeated with a 99-1 vote. Subsequently, efforts to incorporate a preemption clause within the annual defense appropriations bill were abandoned due to lack of support, including opposition within Trump's voter base as indicated by recent polls.
Earlier in the year, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin publicly expressed his objections to such federal restrictions. He conveyed a balanced perspective, recognizing the importance of not stifling innovation while ensuring that industry practices do not jeopardize public welfare. Griffin remarked, "I am sensitive to those in the industry and government who say we need to make sure we don't kill the goose that laid the golden egg. But we also need to make sure the goose doesn't attack us. And we need to make sure the golden egg is actually gold." This nuanced viewpoint reflects the complexities in regulating emerging technologies like AI.
Despite congressional setbacks, President Trump proceeded to issue the executive order, which tasks the Department of Justice with establishing an "AI Litigation Task Force" empowered to challenge states enacting AI regulations. The order also instructs the Department of Commerce to explore mechanisms for potentially withholding federal broadband funding from non-compliant states. Notably, the directive exempts "child safety protections," which many Republican lawmakers have prioritized at the state level.
Trump posted on Truth Social emphasizing the gravity of state interference: "If we are going to have 50 States, many of them bad actors, involved in RULES and the APPROVAL PROCESS. THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT THIS! AI WILL BE DESTROYED IN ITS INFANCY!" His signing was accompanied by David Sacks, who serves as the AI and Crypto Czar and has long advocated for federal preemption of state AI laws.
The constitutional validity of the executive order's approach remains uncertain. According to Hodges, "The type of preemption that has been pursued is ahistorical: There's not an example that we can point to that shows this kind of sweeping, broad ban on laws without a replacement standard." Governor Ron DeSantis publicly questioned the order's reach, affirming states' Tenth Amendment rights and unveiling a set of consumer protections to address AI issues within Florida. His stance suggests a firm commitment to maintaining state-level regulatory authority.
The unfolding legal and political contest will hinge on whether states choose to advance and enforce AI regulation in defiance of the executive order, a move that could provoke Department of Justice litigation and subsequent judicial review. Some Democratic-led states appear willing to proceed, potentially leveraging their AI policies as political capital. Conversely, Republican-led states face a more delicate dilemma. Engaging in direct confrontation with the federal administration risks legal battles and political repercussions, possibly deterring some legislatures from initiating AI laws.
Brendan Steinhauser, a GOP strategist and CEO of the Alliance for Secure AI, reports ongoing discussions with state leaders considering resistance to the federal stance. "People are trying to figure out at the state level, ‘What if we called their bluff?’" he said. Steinhauser advocates for attorneys general to defend existing AI laws and oppose potential Department of Justice lawsuits on constitutional and policy grounds.
States such as Utah and Texas may become focal points in this dispute. Utah’s legislation mandates clear disclosure of AI usage in sectors including finance and mental health treatment. Republican Representative Doug Fiefia denounced the executive order as an infringement on the Tenth Amendment. In Texas, several AI-related bills have passed, notably measures addressing AI-generated child pornography. State Senator Angela Paxton expressed determination to pursue further AI legislation regardless of federal actions, emphasizing the need to protect children, consumers, privacy, and infrastructure independently. She acknowledged approval of the executive order’s exemption for child safety laws but remained cautious about the broad authority granted to the executive branch to override state statutes.
The discord is also manifesting in the broader political arena. Conservative media figure Steve Bannon has critiqued the executive order as a betrayal of the MAGA base, characterizing it as driven by technology industry interests contrary to grassroots conservatives. Brad Littlejohn from American Compass warns that the administration's approach may alienate Trump’s traditional supporters, particularly social conservatives concerned with technology's societal impacts and working-class populists wary of centralized control. Drawing parallels to the dot-com bust, Littlejohn suggests that while economic gains from AI might materialize eventually, many Americans are likely to experience the negative consequences before benefits are realized.
Among grassroots voters, opinions also diverge. Austin small business owner and three-time Trump voter Matt Pankus expressed strong opposition to any federal limitation on states' self-regulatory powers. "This country was set up so that states could do different things to see what works and what doesn’t," he asserted, dismissing the idea of the federal government restricting state authority to protect their citizens as "insane." This sentiment encapsulates concerns about federal overreach amid a politically charged regulatory environment.
In sum, President Trump’s executive order represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over AI governance in the United States. It highlights fundamental tensions between federal coordination and state autonomy, the interests of the technology sector, and differing conservative political philosophies. As this issue unfolds, it is poised to become a significant point of contention ahead of the imminent midterm elections.