On December 11, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order intended to confront state regulations governing the artificial intelligence (AI) sector. The administration's directive instructs the Department of Justice (DOJ) to establish a specialized "AI Litigation Task Force" tasked explicitly with filing lawsuits against states that have enacted AI-related legislation. Additionally, the order assigns roles to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to collaborate with the DOJ in enforcing the White House's AI action framework, with the goal of maneuvering around what the administration describes as "onerous" regulations at the state and local levels.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has been directed under this order to explore the possibility of withholding federal rural broadband funding from states that enact AI regulations deemed unfavorable by the administration. This multifaceted federal approach underscores the Trump administration's strategy to homogenize AI regulatory conditions nationwide, ostensibly to maintain competitive advantage in the global AI landscape.
President Trump articulated the necessity of a unified regulatory framework, drawing a contrast with China’s centralized governance model. "We have to be unified," he stated, citing President Xi Jinping's singular authority as a factor in China's expedited decision-making. Trump's AI adviser, venture capitalist David Sacks, clarified that the administration doesn't intend to oppose all state laws—particularly those aimed at child safety—but aims to challenge the most restrictive statutes that they view as detrimental to AI industry growth.
Despite this rationale, multiple technology policy experts predict inevitable legal battles over the executive order's validity. They emphasize that, without explicit congressional authorization, the federal government lacks the authority to override state regulations on AI. The executive order itself calls for Mr. Sacks to co-develop legislative proposals with Congress, underscoring that formal statutory backing is necessary to solidify federal preemption.
The reaction within Republican circles has been mixed, with some supporters expressing strong criticism. Organizations involved in bipartisan efforts to regulate AI for child protection have voiced concern that the administration's approach sidelines critical stakeholder engagement. Michael Toscano, director of the Family First Technology Initiative at the Institute for Family Studies, called the order a "huge lost opportunity" to guide Republican policy through a more inclusive process, highlighting the inherent contradiction between populist principles and centralizing executive directives on such an important issue.
Furthermore, Adam Billen, vice president at child safety nonprofit Encode, warned of a "chilling effect" on state governments. Even if the executive order is legally overturned, Billen contended, the threat of federal litigation would generate significant legal ambiguity, discouraging states from enacting protective measures and potentially enabling corporations to operate with less oversight.
Mr. Sacks mentioned that, should Congress enact comprehensive national AI legislation, some state laws, especially those designed to protect children, could be spared from federal challenges. To date, amid congressional inaction, more than thirty states have passed laws addressing AI, covering areas such as prohibiting the creation of nonconsensual nude images via AI, mandating public disclosure of AI usage, combating algorithmic discrimination, and safeguarding whistleblowers.
The Trump administration’s regulatory posture is framed around fostering domestic technological competitiveness vis-à-vis China. Paradoxically, in recent weeks, the administration authorized the sale of advanced AI chips by Nvidia to China, a move critiqued by experts like Michael Sobolik of the Hudson Institute for potentially diminishing the United States’ strategic edge.
This executive order represents one of several efforts the administration has made throughout 2025 to limit state-level AI regulation. Attempts to incorporate AI preemption provisions into the annual defense spending bill failed earlier in December, and earlier drafts of the executive order provoked bipartisan opposition when leaked. Attempts to insert AI moratoriums into federal legislation, such as the Senate reconciliation bill, were also unsuccessful.
The AI regulation debate reveals divisions within the Republican Party. While some factions align with tech industry interests and support deregulation, others maintain wary or adversarial stances toward major technology companies. Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley illustrate this split. Cruz, an ally of the tech sector, championed AI moratorium measures and participated in the executive order signing. By contrast, Hawley publicly denounced such efforts, categorizing them as detrimental additions to defense bills. GOP state governors also present contrasting views, with Utah’s Spencer Cox and Florida’s Ron DeSantis expressing skepticism about federal overreach and affirming the importance of state legislative authority in AI governance.
Legal perspectives uniformly question the executive order’s ability to preempt state laws without legislative approval. John Bergmayer, legal director at public interest group Public Knowledge, dismissed the administration's strategies as attempts to circumvent Congress, which, according to him, lack strong legal foundations. Bergmayer referenced a recent 2023 Supreme Court ruling upholding California’s right to regulate its pork industry despite interstate commerce implications, illustrating the judiciary’s recognition of state regulatory powers in matters affecting commerce across states.
Sacks contends that the federal government possesses authority to override states in regulating AI under the interstate commerce clause; however, experts counter that states routinely regulate commerce crossing state lines, a practice endorsed and upheld by the Supreme Court. As the legal and political debate continues, these conflicting interpretations underscore the uncertainties and potential for protracted litigation arising from the executive order.