On December 11, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled, “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence” (the EO), which is intended to “check the most onerous and excessive laws” regulating artificial intelligence and instead create a “minimally burdensome national standard — not 50 discordant state ones.”

Contents of the EO

The president does not have authority to automatically override state laws. Only Congress has the power to legislate and potentially preempt state laws with federal law. Instead, the EO uses various levers within the scope of presidential authority to achieve its goals. The most notable are the following: 

• AI Litigation Task Force: The EO uses the president’s authority to enforce federal laws by directing the U.S. Attorney General to challenge state laws that the AG finds: “unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce, are preempted by existing Federal regulations, or are otherwise unlawful in the Attorney General’s judgment.” In other words, the EO directs the AG to challenge state AI laws on the basis that they are preempted under federal laws or are otherwise unconstitutional. 

• Restrictions on state funding: The EO directs the Secretary of Commerce and executive agencies to restrict discretionary funding to states that the president’s administration determines have AI laws that are inconsistent with its policy. This includes restricting funding available for broadband infrastructure under the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program. 

• Legislation: The EO directs the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto and the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology to prepare a legislative recommendation to Congress for a uniform federal policy framework for AI that would preempt conflicting state AI laws. The EO clarifies that the recommendation should not preempt state AI laws relating to child safety protections, data center infrastructure, state government procurement of AI and other topics in the president’s discretion.  

What is the likely impact of the EO on State AI legislation? 

Unless you are a state attorney general, legislator or governor, or a private practitioner specializing in constitutional law, the EO is not likely to have an immediate impact on your business or on any state regulation of AI. While states with Republican-controlled legislatures or Republican governors, or that are dependent on impacted federal funding, may fall in line with the president’s AI policy, it remains to be seen whether the EO will have a “chilling effect” on all states. Certain states that have been especially active in AI regulation, such as California, may even proactively challenge the EO’s terms. 

It will be a bit of time before the AI Litigation Task Force starts challenging state AI laws (if they do at all), and, of course, the litigation process is long and there is no guarantee that its claims will be successful.  Whether any restrictions on state funding will have an impact will vary based on each state's individual situation, so it's unclear how much of a chilling effect they will have on state AI laws. The EO does not indicate when the President’s administration will make a recommendation on a federal policy framework for AI, and any such proposal would likely face challenges to passing in a divided Congress. This is all to say that achieving the goals of the EO will take a lot of time, and there is still quite a bit of uncertainty as to how the process will unfold. In addition, the policies underpinning the EO may shift with the upcoming midterm elections, and the EO itself could be repealed by a new administration following the next Presidential election.

How should businesses approach compliance with state AI laws in light of the EO?

Businesses working to comply with current state AI laws may want to continue with “business as usual,” as there likely will not be an immediate impact for the reasons noted. The EO may result in states taking a less aggressive approach to AI regulation or enforcement, but businesses should proceed with caution and take a “wait and see” approach as we begin to learn how the administration actually implements this policy and whether its methods are successful. It is also important to remember that abandoning compliance efforts that need to be rebuilt later could be more costly than keeping such programs in place for the near term. And even if the EO is successful in achieving some of its stated goals, AI regulation is likely to still come in some shape or form in the future.