The Trump administration is preparing to challenge state-level artificial intelligence laws that the White House views as obstacles to the sector’s growth and to America’s long-term competitiveness. In recent months, several states have advanced measures aimed at curbing risks associated with emerging technologies, while Trump’s team has repeatedly warned that excessive regulation could stifle innovation. The president is focusing primarily on actions taken in liberal states, even though this approach is already drawing criticism from lawmakers in both parties who previously opposed efforts in Congress to weaken state authority.
“It seems to me this is the Hail Mary phase,” said former congressman Brad Carson, now head of Americans for Responsible Innovation. “They could have issued this order six months ago when they were actively engaged on the issue.
But they chose not to, which suggests the legal basis may be questionable.” He noted that the administration has already pursued various legislative avenues that have either failed to gain traction or are struggling to advance: “So now they might as well throw whatever they can at the wall.”
The draft order would authorize lawsuits against states and the suspension of federal funding over local AI rules. A White House spokesman said any discussion of executive orders remains “speculation” until formally confirmed. The document instructs Attorney General Pam Bondi to establish an “AI Litigation Task Force” to challenge state measures as violations of the Constitution’s commerce clause. Commerce Secretary Howard Latnik would be tasked with identifying laws that contradict the administration’s position, referring them to the task force, and drafting recommendations that could bar certain states from broadband support programs. Other agencies are instructed to assess whether they can condition their grants on states abandoning such rules.
The Federal Communications Commission is asked to consider a single federal AI disclosure standard that would supersede state requirements. The Federal Trade Commission, for its part, must outline how the law barring unfair or deceptive practices applies to AI models and how it may preempt local regulations. In its final section, the document directs the White House to propose a national system for technology oversight, though no timeline is specified.
The Trump administration links its initiatives to rivalry with China, stating in the draft order that American companies “must be able to deploy new solutions freely and without burdensome regulation.” As an example, it cites what it calls California’s “complex and onerous” law—apparently a reference to S.B. 53, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in late September. Even before the bill became law, Washington had criticized California, whose dominance in Silicon Valley allows it to shape nationwide approaches. At the time, the White House’s senior AI adviser, Sriram Krishnan, said the administration did not want “California setting AI rules for the entire country.”
A group of Republican lawmakers has backed the White House initiative. Trump’s summer “big and beautiful bill” originally included a ten-year moratorium on AI regulation tied to broadband funding. But the Senate removed the provision by a vote of 99–1 after speeches by Senator Marsha Blackburn and Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene. This week, Punchbowl News reported that House Republican leaders are considering adding to the defense authorization bill a clause giving federal rules precedence over state laws, prompting another wave of objections. Senator Josh Hawley criticized the idea, writing that it showed “what money can do.” Alabama Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who had earlier urged Republicans to block a similar measure, said Congress should “abandon the plan to strip states of authority and protect our children and communities.” Her stance was echoed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who called the proposal a “subsidy for Big Tech” that would curb states’ ability to “defend free political speech, push back against apps targeting children, prevent intellectual property violations, and stop data centers from overwhelming power grids.” He added: “Artificial intelligence is the most consequential economic and cultural shift of our time; denying people the right to steer these technologies through self-government is federal overreach and a blank check for tech giants. Unacceptable.” Later, responding to concerns about the draft order, he simply said: “Good questions.”
Democratic senator Richard Blumenthal accused the administration of “once again using the White House to serve Big Tech’s interests.” “Make no mistake: Trump works for Mark Zuckerberg—not for you,” he wrote. “The president’s AI agenda raises your electric bills, accelerates China’s tech sector, gives your children access to predatory chatbots, and inflates the AI bubble. Big Tech quite literally owns this White House.” Greene also rejected any effort to curtail state authority—without mentioning the order directly: “There should be no moratorium on states’ rights when it comes to AI. States must retain the ability to regulate technology and enact laws that serve their residents. The principle of federalism must be preserved.”
Trump has not responded to these remarks. Speaking at the U.S.–Saudi investment forum in Washington, he said: “There are a couple of very good, very well-meaning senators who believe each state should have the right to approve decisions. We’re not going to do that, because it won’t let us accomplish what needs to be done, and we will fix it.”