Trump signs executive order to preempt state AI laws

President Trump signed Executive Order 14365, “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” directing the federal government to challenge state AI laws it characterised as an “obstruction” of a single national policy. A near-identical draft, titled “Eliminating State Law Obstruction of National Artificial Intelligence Policy,” had circulated publicly since mid-November after a leak, and press coverage at the time treated it as imminent; the version actually signed came three weeks later, under a different title, after a congressional attempt to pass a federal moratorium on state AI laws had again failed.

The order directs the Attorney General to stand up an AI Litigation Task Force within 30 days, beginning operation in January 2026, with the “sole responsibility” of challenging state AI laws in court on grounds of federal preemption, unconstitutional burdens on interstate commerce, or conflict with the First Amendment. It instructs the Secretary of Commerce to publish a review of existing state AI laws, directs the FTC to consider treating state-mandated “bias mitigation” requirements as a deceptive trade practice, and asks the FCC to consider a federal disclosure and reporting standard for AI models. Separately, it makes states with laws the administration deems restrictive ineligible for remaining funds from the $42bn Broadband Equity Access and Deployment programme, and lets other federal agencies attach similar conditions to discretionary grants.

The order carves out exceptions: it explicitly does not seek to preempt state laws on child safety protections, AI compute and data-centre infrastructure permitting, or government procurement and use of AI. As an executive order rather than legislation, it does not itself invalidate any state law — it directs agencies to litigate and to draft a uniform federal framework, and legal challenges from affected states were expected.

The order set up a direct confrontation with states that had already legislated, including California’s SB 53 and, days later, New York’s RAISE Act, both of which impose safety-disclosure obligations of the kind the order’s supporters wanted to override with a single national standard.