White House Issues Executive Order Seeking a National AI Policy Framework

The EO, aptly titled Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence, reaffirms the Administration’s policy objective of sustaining and enhancing the United States’ global AI dominance through a uniform national standard rather than a patchwork of burdensome state laws.

The EO outlines a deregulatory framework intended to remove barriers to AI development, including:

• AI Litigation Task Force: Directs the Attorney General to establish a task force within 30 days to challenge state AI laws inconsistent with US AI dominance on grounds of federal preemption, the unconstitutional regulation of interstate commerce, or other constitutional violations.
• Evaluation of State AI Laws: Requires the US Secretary of the Department of Commerce to publish, within 90 days, an evaluation identifying “onerous” state laws, including, at a minimum, laws that compel disclosure, reporting, or alterations to AI outputs.
• State Funding: Directs the Secretary of Commerce to issue a policy regarding eligibility for remaining funding under the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program.
• Federal Disclosure Standard: Directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to consider adopting a federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that would preempt state requirements.
• FTC Policy Statement: Instructs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to issue a policy statement explaining when state laws that require alterations to the truthful outputs of AI models are preempted by the FTC Act’s prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts or practices.
• Legislative Recommendation: Calls for preparation of a legislative proposal to establish a comprehensive federal AI regulatory framework.

The EO signals significant federal pushback against state AI regimes that mandate model disclosures, risk assessments, or output modifications to address algorithmic discrimination or content concerns. Litigation challenging the EO is all but certain from states like California and Colorado, which have adopted AI laws.

What Does the EO Not Do?

While the EO seeks to further the Trump Administration’s well publicized desire to maintain the United States’ global dominance in AI, the order itself does not preempt state AI laws, enact any federal legislation, or displace the existing state privacy laws. Notably, the EO does not propose a federal privacy statute, amend sectoral laws (such as HIPAA, GLBA, FERPA, COPPA), or directly preempt comprehensive state privacy laws. It also expressly instructs the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto and the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, who are tasked with preparing a legislative recommendation on a federal policy framework, not to recommend legislation or regulation to preempt otherwise lawful state AI laws relating to child safety protections, computer and data center infrastructure, and state government procurement and use of AI.

Immediate Implications

For AI developers, deployers, data brokers, and data-rich platforms, the EO ushers in a period of heightened uncertainty — and opportunity. Companies facing multi-state AI transparency, profiling, impact assessment, or “high-risk AI” duties may see targeted provisions challenged, narrowed, or ultimately displaced if courts uphold agency action or if Congress enacts a federal statute preempting state laws.

What’s Next

To mitigate liability exposure and to stay up to date with the quickly evolving AI legal landscape, businesses can:

• Monitor forthcoming Commerce Department evaluations of state AI laws.
• Track FCC and FTC policy statements and proceedings.
• Assess current compliance programs for exposure to state-level AI laws likely to be challenged.
• Consider engaging in public comment opportunities as agencies promulgate regulations to implement the EO.

The real inflection points will be in the courts — both over agency authority to promulgate preemptive rules and over constitutional challenges to specific state provisions — and, potentially, in US Congress if the Administration advances a preemptive federal AI bill. Until then, companies can plan for dual horizons: continued compliance with current state AI and privacy obligations and readiness to pivot if federal standards emerge and withstand judicial review.