On Monday, President Donald Trump announced his intention to sign an executive order this week to restrict states from establishing their own AI regulations.
“I will be implementing a single-rule Executive Order this week,” Trump stated on social media. “It is unreasonable to expect a company to secure 50 separate approvals for every initiative.”
Trump declared, “A singular rulebook is essential if we are to maintain our leadership in AI. Currently, we surpass all other nations in this competition, but that advantage will quickly vanish if 50 states, many with detrimental agendas, become involved in establishing regulations and approval processes…AI WILL BE CRUSHED IN ITS EARLY STAGES!”
This announcement by Trump follows the recent failure in the Senate to prevent states from regulating AI. Congress could not reach a consensus to include the widely opposed measure in an essential defense budget bill.
Due to the rapid advancement of AI and insufficient federal consumer safeguards, numerous states have started implementing their own technological guidelines. For instance, California introduced SB 53, an AI safety and transparency bill, and Tennessee’s ELVIS Act offers protection to musicians and performers against AI-created deepfakes of their voices and appearances without consent.
Prominent figures from Silicon Valley, such as OpenAI President Greg Brockman and David Sacks, a venture capitalist who became a White House “AI czar,” have contended that state-level regulations would result in a fragmented and impractical legal framework, thereby hindering innovation and jeopardizing the U.S.’s competitive edge over China in AI development.
The powerful lobbying efforts of Silicon Valley have historically prevented significant tech regulation. Advocates for states’ rights to regulate argue that there is no basis to suggest state AI laws would “destroy AI progress,” despite the assertions from venture capitalists and technology firms.
Trump’s executive order, an early draft of which surfaced weeks prior, is set to establish an “AI Litigation Task Force” to dispute state AI legislation in court. It would also mandate agencies to assess state laws deemed “burdensome” and guide the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission toward adopting national standards that would supersede state regulations.
Furthermore, this Order would grant Sacks direct authority over AI policy, thereby bypassing the typical functions of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, which is currently led by Michael Kratsios.
“AI billionaires are receiving an early Christmas present, consistently getting their desired outcomes from the White House: a substantial benefit that simplifies their pursuit of immense profits, with absolute disregard for the dangers posed to our children, our security, and our employment,” Alex Bores, a New York Assembly member and sponsor of New York’s RAISE Act, remarked in a statement.
Efforts to curb states’ authority to regulate AI have faced significant opposition from both political factions in Congress. Earlier this year, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) proposed a decade-long ban on AI legislation within the federal budget bill, but this was overwhelmingly defeated 99-1, signifying a rare bipartisan consensus that technology firms require supervision.
Following the leak of Trump’s draft last month, a number of Republican politicians voiced their concerns.
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) asserted on X: “States must maintain their authority to regulate and legislate on AI and all other matters that serve their state’s interests. Federalism is paramount.”
Late last week, Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL) stated: “I am against removing Florida’s power to legislate in the best interest of its citizens. A ten-year AI moratorium would prohibit state AI regulation, thereby stopping Florida from establishing crucial safeguards for individuals, children, and families.”
DeSantis has also characterized data centers as substantial consumers of power and water, and as potential threats to employment.
“The emergence of AI represents the most profound economic and cultural transformation currently underway; preventing people from productively directing these technologies through self-governance amounts to federal overreach and allows tech companies unchecked freedom,” he declared in a November X post.
Towards the end of last week, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) cautioned Trump against the executive order, suggesting he “cede AI regulation to the states” to uphold federalism and enable localized protections.
The impulse to safeguard individuals from the potential dangers of AI technology is well-founded. Instances of suicide have been reported after extensive interactions with AI chatbots, and psychologists have observed an increase in a condition termed “AI psychosis.”
Last month, a bipartisan group of more than 35 state attorneys general cautioned Congress that nullifying state AI laws might lead to “catastrophic outcomes.” Additionally, over 200 state legislators have signed an open letter against federal preemption, citing potential hindrances to AI safety advancements.
Updates have been made to this article to include comments from Alex Bores (D-NY).