The artificial intelligence industry stands at a critical juncture as President Donald Trump’s December 11, 2025 executive order attempts to reshape the regulatory landscape by challenging state-level AI laws. The order, titled “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” establishes an unprecedented federal intervention into state authority, threatening to ignite years of constitutional litigation that will define how AI is governed in America for decades to come.
The Executive Order: A Comprehensive Federal Strategy
President Trump signed the sweeping executive order during an Oval Office ceremony attended by AI and crypto czar David Sacks, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Senator Ted Cruz. The order represents the administration’s most aggressive attempt yet to centralize AI regulation under federal control after two failed congressional efforts to impose a 10-year moratorium on state AI laws.
The executive order pursues federal preemption through multiple coordinated mechanisms. The Attorney General must establish an AI Litigation Task Force within 30 days with the sole responsibility of challenging state AI laws deemed inconsistent with federal policy. The task force will pursue litigation on grounds that state laws unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce, are preempted by existing federal regulations, or are otherwise unlawful.
Within 90 days, the Secretary of Commerce must publish an evaluation identifying “onerous” state AI laws that conflict with national policy. This evaluation must specifically identify laws requiring AI models to alter their outputs or compelling disclosures that may violate the First Amendment. States with these identified laws become ineligible for non-deployment funds under the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program, a $42.5 billion initiative to expand high-speed internet access in rural areas.
The Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission received directives to issue policy statements clarifying that certain state laws are preempted by federal authority. The FTC must explain circumstances under which state laws requiring alterations to AI outputs are preempted by the Federal Trade Commission Act’s prohibition on deceptive practices. The FCC must consider establishing a federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI that would preempt conflicting state requirements.
The executive order also tasks David Sacks with preparing legislative recommendations for Congress establishing a uniform federal policy framework that would formally preempt state AI laws conflicting with national policy. The recommended legislation includes carve-outs for state laws protecting child safety, facilitating data center infrastructure, or relating to state government procurement and use of AI.
Colorado’s AI Law: The Primary Target
Colorado’s Senate Bill 205, signed into law on May 17, 2024, has become the focal point of federal preemption efforts. The Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act represents the nation’s first comprehensive state law regulating high-risk AI systems and has been compared to the European Union’s AI Act in scope and ambition.
The law applies to developers and deployers of “high-risk artificial intelligence systems” defined as AI making or substantially contributing to “consequential decisions” affecting housing, employment, education, healthcare, insurance, and lending. The legislation establishes a duty of reasonable care to protect consumers from algorithmic discrimination, defined as any differential treatment or impact disfavoring individuals based on protected characteristics including age, race, disability, ethnicity, and other classifications.
Developers must provide comprehensive documentation including the AI system’s intended purpose and benefits, known limitations and risks of algorithmic discrimination, data governance measures covering training datasets, measures to examine data sources for possible biases, intended outputs, and steps taken to mitigate discrimination risks. They must make available high-level summaries of training data, descriptions of anti-bias testing, and instructions on proper system use and monitoring.
Deployers must implement risk management policies and programs, conduct annual impact assessments evaluating discrimination risks, notify consumers when AI makes consequential decisions about them, provide opportunities to correct incorrect personal data, offer appeal processes with human review when technically feasible, and report discovered algorithmic discrimination to the Attorney General within 90 days.
The law’s effective date was originally February 1, 2026, but was delayed to June 30, 2026 following a special legislative session in August 2025. Governor Jared Polis signed the bill with reservations, stating in a letter to the General Assembly that the law deviated from traditional discrimination methods by subjecting developers and deployers to a negligence standard rather than targeting intentional discriminatory conduct.
Critics, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, argue the law imposes unworkable compliance burdens on businesses. A Common Sense Institute study projects Colorado’s law will cost the state 40,000 jobs and $7 billion in economic output by 2030. The Chamber extrapolated these impacts nationwide, estimating that similar requirements could result in 92,000 lost jobs and applying Colorado’s 1% productivity decline nationally could cost up to 713,000 jobs and $53.7 billion in GDP by 2030.
The Trump administration characterizes Colorado’s algorithmic discrimination provisions as requiring AI models to alter “truthful outputs” and embedding ideological bias into AI systems. The White House fact sheet accompanying the executive order stated that some states are attempting to “embed DEI ideology into AI models, producing ‘Woke AI,'” referencing controversies over AI image generation systems producing historically inaccurate depictions.
California, New York, and Texas: The State Regulatory Landscape
California has emerged as the most active state regulator of AI, passing 17 AI-related bills in 2024 alone. The state pursued a comprehensive regulatory approach initially, but after Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a comprehensive AI safety bill, California reverted to targeted legislation addressing specific AI applications and risks.
California’s AI Transparency Act (SB 942), signed in September 2024 and effective January 1, 2026, requires “covered providers” with over one million monthly California users to clearly indicate when content has been generated or altered by AI. The law mandates AI detection tools and sets licensing practices ensuring public access only to compliant systems.
The California AI Training Data Transparency Act (AB 2013) compels developers of generative AI systems available to Californians to reveal details about datasets used in training, promoting transparency and accountability. The law requires high-level summaries of training data and went into effect for systems released on or after January 1, 2022.
In September 2025, California Governor Newsom signed the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (SB 53), regulating “large frontier developers” with annual gross revenue exceeding $500 million who develop “frontier models.” This first-of-its-kind law requires extensive transparency measures and risk assessments for the most powerful AI systems.
California also enacted numerous sector-specific laws including regulations for AI-generated content in elections, digital replicas of performers, health care AI disclosures, and companion chatbot safety requirements. The state’s approach reflects a strategy of targeted interventions rather than comprehensive framework legislation.
New York has introduced the most AI-related legislation among all states, with particular focus on employment and automated decision-making. The state’s RAISE Act (AB 6453/SB 6953) targets frontier models with transparency and risk safeguards. New York City previously enacted Local Law No. 144 regulating AI-assisted hiring, requiring annual bias audits and notice provisions for employment screening tools.
Texas enacted the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA, HB 149) in May 2025, effective January 1, 2026. Unlike Colorado’s comprehensive approach, Texas focused primarily on government applications of AI. The law prohibits intentionally developing or deploying AI systems to incite harm, infringe constitutional rights, engage in unlawful discrimination, or produce deepfakes or child pornography. The enacted version replaced earlier proposals similar to Colorado’s law after significant industry lobbying.
According to Brookings Institution tracking, 47 states introduced AI-related legislation in 2025, with 260 measures introduced across state legislatures. However, only 22 bills passed, reflecting the tension between desire to mitigate AI risks and fear of stifling innovation. The passage rate of just 11 percent demonstrates the complexity and controversy surrounding AI governance.
Commerce Clause and Preemption: The Constitutional Battleground
The executive order’s legal foundation rests primarily on two constitutional arguments: the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine and federal preemption under the Supremacy Clause. Both theories face significant legal hurdles that make court challenges likely to drag on for years.
Dormant Commerce Clause Challenges
The dormant Commerce Clause doctrine prevents states from enacting laws that discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce, even in the absence of federal legislation. The executive order directs the Department of Justice to challenge state AI laws on grounds that such laws “unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce.”
This argument draws heavily from a September 2025 white paper by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, which proposed that state AI regulations impose excessive burdens on interstate commerce by creating a fragmented regulatory landscape forcing companies to comply with 50 different state requirements.
However, legal experts broadly agree this argument faces steep odds in court. The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross significantly narrowed the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine. Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion established that state laws generally do not violate the dormant Commerce Clause unless they involve differential treatment discriminating against out-of-state interests or imposing costs on other states without sufficient justification.
John Bergmayer, legal director of Public Knowledge, stated that the Commerce Clause argument fails because “states are, in fact, allowed to regulate interstate commerce. They do it all the time. And the Supreme Court just recently said it was fine.” The National Pork Producers decision upheld California’s Proposition 12, which regulated pork production practices nationwide by requiring that pork sold in California come from farms meeting California’s animal welfare standards, even though this affected farmers in other states.
The Institute for Law & AI analyzed the executive order’s Commerce Clause theory and concluded that “this commerce clause argument, at least with respect to the state laws specifically referred to in the [executive order], is legally meritless and unlikely to succeed in court.” The analysis noted that state AI laws like Colorado’s do not discriminate against out-of-state businesses or treat them differently from in-state businesses, which would be required under the narrowed dormant Commerce Clause standard.
Moreover, the laws challenged do not involve the type of protectionist measures or differential treatment that would trigger heightened scrutiny. Colorado’s law applies equally to all developers and deployers operating in the state, regardless of where they are headquartered. The costs of compliance, while potentially substantial, represent indirect effects on interstate commerce rather than direct regulation of out-of-state activity.
Brad Carson, president of Americans for Responsible Innovation, criticized the executive order as relying on “a flimsy and overly broad interpretation of the Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause cooked up by venture capitalists over the last six months.” Carson predicted the order will “hit a brick wall in the courts.”
Federal Preemption Arguments
The executive order also invokes federal preemption, arguing that existing federal regulations already occupy the field of AI regulation, making conflicting state laws invalid under the Supremacy Clause. However, this argument faces a fundamental problem: there is no comprehensive federal AI regulatory framework.
Ropes & Gray analysis noted that “although state laws can be preempted if they pose an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of federal law, unlike statutes or regulations, Executive Orders do not carry the force of federal law.” Without Congress passing legislation establishing federal AI standards, the President cannot unilaterally declare state laws preempted through executive action.
The executive order attempts to work around this limitation by directing the FTC and FCC to issue policy statements claiming that their existing authorities preempt certain state AI laws. The FTC directive focuses on state laws requiring alterations to AI outputs, arguing these are preempted by the FTC Act’s prohibition on deceptive practices. The FCC directive aims to establish a federal AI reporting and disclosure standard that would preempt state requirements.
However, agency policy statements do not carry the weight of formal regulations. As legal observers note, policy guidance does not create binding law, and agencies cannot expand their regulatory authority beyond what Congress has authorized. The notion that prohibiting algorithmic discrimination constitutes an “unfair and deceptive” practice subject to FTC preemption would overturn decades of civil rights law precedent.
Jones Walker LLP’s analysis emphasized that “Commerce Clause preemption requires congressional action, not executive orders. The Supreme Court has consistently held that only Congress can preempt state law under Article I. While the DOJ can litigate that state laws burden interstate commerce, the President cannot declare preemption through an executive directive.”
The Center for Democracy and Technology pointed out a critical limitation: “the DOJ cannot plausibly claim standing to challenge these state laws. Parties need to be harmed by the laws at issue to justify bringing a case to challenge them, and while affected companies could plausibly make that claim, the DOJ cannot.” Without standing, the AI Litigation Task Force’s lawsuits would be dismissed before reaching the merits of constitutional claims.
First Amendment Challenges
The executive order also suggests that state transparency and disclosure requirements may violate the First Amendment by compelling commercial speech. The Commerce Department must identify laws compelling disclosures that “would violate the First Amendment or any other provision of the Constitution.”
This argument faces significant obstacles. Courts routinely uphold compelled commercial disclosures serving legitimate government interests, such as nutrition labels, financial warnings, and product safety information. The Supreme Court’s precedent in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel established that mandatory disclosure requirements receive less stringent First Amendment scrutiny when they are reasonably related to preventing consumer deception.
Whether AI transparency requirements qualify as permissible commercial disclosures or impermissible compelled speech remains largely untested and will likely require years of litigation to resolve. States can argue that requiring disclosure of AI system purposes, training data, and discrimination risks serves the compelling government interest of protecting consumers from algorithmic bias and discrimination in consequential decisions affecting employment, housing, and credit.
Funding Restrictions: The BEAD Leverage Strategy
The executive order’s funding restriction provisions represent one of its most immediate and tangible enforcement mechanisms, though they also present significant legal vulnerabilities. The strategy involves conditioning federal broadband funding on states’ willingness to suspend enforcement of AI laws deemed inconsistent with national policy.
Within 90 days, the Commerce Secretary must issue a policy notice specifying conditions under which states remain eligible for Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program funding. The order mandates that states with identified “onerous AI laws” become ineligible for non-deployment funds “to the maximum extent allowed by Federal law.” The policy notice must describe how a fragmented state regulatory landscape for AI threatens BEAD-funded deployments and the program’s mission of delivering universal high-speed connectivity.
All executive departments and agencies must assess their discretionary grant programs to determine whether making absence of certain AI laws a condition of eligibility would be consistent with the program’s purposes. This potentially affects billions of dollars in federal funding across multiple agencies.
This funding strategy faces substantial legal challenges under the Spending Clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court established in South Dakota v. Dole that Congress can attach conditions to federal spending, but these conditions must be unambiguous, related to the federal interest in the program, not independently unconstitutional, and not amount to coercion.
In November 2025, a federal district court in Rhode Island struck down similar attempts by the Department of Transportation to condition transportation funding on states’ compliance with administration priorities. The court ruled the conditions exceeded DOT’s statutory authority, violated the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious, and violated the Spending Clause. While this decision awaits appellate review, it provides a roadmap for state challenges to the BEAD funding restrictions.
The connection between state AI laws and broadband deployment appears tenuous at best. BEAD funding aims to expand high-speed internet access in underserved areas. The administration must demonstrate how Colorado’s algorithmic discrimination requirements or California’s transparency mandates meaningfully threaten broadband infrastructure deployment—a challenging factual showing.
Furthermore, Congress explicitly rejected an AI moratorium tied to BEAD funding in July 2025. The Senate voted 99-1 to remove provisions from the “One Big Beautiful Bill” that would have blocked BEAD funding to states with AI laws. The administration’s attempt to impose through executive action what Congress overwhelmingly rejected raises serious questions about executive authority and separation of powers.
The Center for Democracy and Technology argued that “the administration appears hell-bent on holding broadband funds hostage to score a political point on AI regulation, to the severe detriment of consumers who lack desperately-needed access to broadband services.” CDT questioned whether the National Telecommunications and Information Administration has statutory and constitutional authority to withhold funds based on unrelated AI policies.
States targeted by funding restrictions have strong grounds to challenge the conditions as exceeding agency authority, violating the Administrative Procedure Act, and transgressing constitutional spending power limits. Litigation would likely result in injunctions preserving funding while constitutional questions proceed through appeals.
State Pushback and Federalism Concerns
The executive order has triggered unprecedented bipartisan opposition from state officials defending traditional state regulatory authority. In November 2025, a coalition of 36 state attorneys general sent a letter to Congress urging opposition to proposals restricting states from enacting or enforcing AI laws. The letter emphasized states’ traditional role in consumer protection, civil rights enforcement, and public safety regulation.
Even prominent Republicans have criticized the federal preemption attempt. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis posted on social media that “an executive order doesn’t/can’t preempt state legislative action. Congress could, theoretically, preempt states through legislation.” DeSantis, who recently proposed his own AI-related measures for Florida, emphasized the constitutional limits on executive power.
Conservative critics within the Republican movement argue the executive order contradicts the party’s federalism principles. Michael Toscano, director of the Family First Technology Initiative at the Institute for Family Studies, stated: “This is a huge lost opportunity by the Trump administration to lead the Republican Party into a broadly consultative process. It doesn’t make sense for a populist movement to cut out the people on the most critical issue of our day.”
The Center for American Progress characterized the order as “an unambiguous threat to states beyond just AI,” arguing it represents “a potentially rare instance where state attorneys general of both parties can unite in opposition to an overreaching federal executive policy.” The organization called for states to “come together and prepare joint legal action to challenge the EO’s legality generally and seek a preliminary injunction.”
State officials have framed their defense in terms of core federalism principles. States maintain that regulation of consumer protection, civil rights, employment practices, housing, education, and healthcare has traditionally been a state function. The Tenth Amendment reserves to states powers not delegated to the federal government, and AI regulation arguably falls within this reserved domain absent congressional action.
Seyfarth Shaw LLP noted that “states are likely to frame legal challenges to the EO around core federalism principles. While the specific arguments will vary, challenges may focus on whether executive action—absent clear congressional authorization—can lawfully constrain state legislative and enforcement authority.”
The bipartisan nature of opposition reflects genuine concerns about precedent. If an executive order can invalidate state laws regulating emerging technology without congressional authorization, the implications extend far beyond AI to any area where the federal executive branch prefers a lighter regulatory touch. States from both parties recognize the threat to their traditional policymaking authority.
Impact on Startups and the AI Industry
The executive order’s practical impact on AI startups and the broader industry presents a paradox: intended to reduce regulatory burden, it may actually create greater uncertainty and compliance complexity during years of litigation.
Proponents argue that eliminating state-by-state requirements would significantly benefit startups by reducing compliance costs and simplifying legal navigation. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce conducted economic analysis projecting that Colorado-style regulations applied nationwide could slow small business AI investment by 0.17%, potentially costing 92,000 jobs. The Chamber’s analysis, drawing on Common Sense Institute methodology, estimated a 1% decline in productivity could cost the U.S. economy up to 713,000 jobs and $53.7 billion in GDP by 2030.
Small businesses face measurable compliance burdens from state AI regulations. The Chamber calculated that California Privacy Protection Agency rules, combined with new privacy and cybersecurity requirements, will impose nearly $16,000 in annual compliance costs on California small businesses. For the 29.2 million small businesses located outside California, these costs amount to an “interstate innovation tax” required to operate in all markets.
Survey data shows 65% of small businesses nationwide are concerned about rising litigation and compliance costs from conflicting AI laws. Among small business owners using AI, 82% increased their workforce last year. However, when faced with regulations like Colorado’s, one-third stated they would scale down AI use and another 20% would be less likely to use AI at all.
The Washington Legal Foundation argued that compliance costs are “largely fixed rather than variable, meaning they do not scale proportionally with firm size or output. A startup developing an AI application faces essentially the same legal analysis and compliance infrastructure requirements as a large corporation, creating significant barriers to entry that can lead to market distortion.”
For AI startups specifically, the EU AI Act provides a cautionary example. Studies estimate the Act could classify over 33% of AI startups as “high-risk,” with compliance costs between $160,000 and $330,000. These fixed costs disproportionately burden early-stage companies lacking the resources of established tech giants.
However, critics argue the executive order creates immediate uncertainty rather than clarity. Andrew Gamino-Cheong, CTO and co-founder of AI governance company Trustible, told TechCrunch: “Big Tech and the big AI startups have the funds to hire lawyers to help them figure out what to do, or they can simply hedge their bets. The uncertainty does hurt startups the most, especially those that can’t get billions of funding almost at will.”
Gamino-Cheong explained that legal ambiguity makes it harder to sell to risk-sensitive customers like legal teams, financial firms, and healthcare organizations, increasing sales cycles and insurance costs for startups. Hart Brown, principal author of Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt’s AI Task Force recommendations, noted that startups “typically do not have robust regulatory governance programs until they reach a scale that requires a program. These programs can be expensive and time-consuming to meet a very dynamic regulatory environment.”
The executive order creates a period where startups must navigate three simultaneous uncertainties: which state laws remain enforceable, what federal standards will ultimately emerge, and how courts will resolve the conflicts. Sean Fitzpatrick, CEO of LexisNexis North America, predicted that “states will defend their consumer protection authority in court, with cases likely escalating to the Supreme Court.”
During this litigation period, which could last three to five years or longer, startups face the worst of both worlds: state enforcement remains possible while federal protection remains uncertain. Gary Kibel, partner at Davis + Gilbert, warned that “an executive order is not necessarily the right vehicle to override laws that states have duly enacted,” noting that current uncertainty “leaves open two extremes: highly restrictive rules or no action at all, either of which could create a ‘Wild West’ that favors Big Tech’s ability to absorb risk and wait things out.”
Morgan Reed, president of The App Association, urged Congress to “quickly enact a comprehensive, targeted, and risk-based national AI framework. We can’t have a patchwork of state AI laws, and a lengthy court fight over the constitutionality of an Executive Order isn’t any better.”
The investment community increasingly views regulatory compliance as a critical factor in valuation and funding decisions. According to PrometAI analysis, investors in 2025 add or discount based on how well startups handle regulatory risk, creating what’s called the “compliance premium.” Startups face 15-20% higher legal expenses at seed stage simply to navigate regulatory uncertainty, extending due diligence timelines and affecting valuations.
For startups seeking to scale nationally, the current environment presents strategic challenges. They must either comply with the most restrictive state requirements (California and Colorado) while hoping for eventual federal preemption, adopt a wait-and-see approach risking non-compliance penalties, or limit operations to states without comprehensive AI laws, thereby constraining market opportunities.
Expert Predictions on Court Challenges
Legal scholars and policy experts broadly predict extensive litigation with uncertain outcomes that will take years to resolve, potentially reaching the Supreme Court on fundamental questions of federal-state power distribution.
The Institute for Law & AI’s comprehensive analysis concluded that the dormant Commerce Clause challenges “are legally meritless and unlikely to succeed in court” based on current Supreme Court precedent. However, the analysis acknowledged that predicting judicial outcomes remains challenging given the complexity of issues and the Department of Justice’s resources to develop novel legal theories.
Professor Daryl Lim of Penn State University predicted that “2025 will see heightened demand for legal productivity solutions leveraging AI and state court data to automate legal tasks” as firms prepare for the regulatory battles ahead. The proliferation of AI legal tools reflects the industry’s anticipation of complex, data-intensive litigation.
Procedural hurdles will likely delay substantive rulings. The Center for Democracy and Technology noted that the DOJ may lack standing to challenge state laws because “parties need to be harmed by the laws at issue to justify bringing a case to challenge them, and while affected companies could plausibly make that claim, the DOJ cannot.” If courts dismiss cases for lack of standing, affected AI companies would need to bring challenges, complicating the administration’s coordinated strategy.
Even if cases proceed on the merits, courts will face novel questions without clear precedent. Yale Journal on Regulation analysis suggested that “permitting such litigation based on some dormant commerce clause theories would undermine the checks and balances between Congress and the President,” potentially enhancing presidential power at Congress’s expense. Courts may be reluctant to expand executive authority to invalidate state laws absent congressional authorization.
The Center for American Progress predicted that “states should come together and prepare joint legal action to challenge the EO’s legality generally and seek a preliminary injunction.” Coordinated state litigation could produce conflicting rulings across federal circuits, ultimately requiring Supreme Court resolution.
Public Citizen co-president Robert Weissman called the executive order “a disgraceful invitation to reckless behavior by the world’s largest corporations and a complete override of the federalist principles that Trump and MAGA claim to venerate.” Weissman predicted strong judicial skepticism toward federal overreach.
Jones Walker LLP’s analysis concluded: “Prepare for prolonged uncertainty, not swift resolution. Commerce Clause and First Amendment challenges will likely produce years of litigation across multiple jurisdictions. This isn’t a short-term compliance problem—it’s a multi-year governance challenge requiring sustained attention.”
The timing of court decisions matters significantly. If litigation extends beyond 2028, a different administration could withdraw the executive order and abandon the litigation, rendering years of legal arguments moot. Alternatively, Congress could enact comprehensive AI legislation during this period, superseding both the executive order and state laws with federal statutory framework.
Some experts predict the Supreme Court will ultimately establish that Congress must act. Goodwin LLP analysis noted that “whether federal intervention will bring coherence to this chaos—or whether the current fragmented approach will persist—remains one of the biggest unanswered questions in American technology policy.”
The conservative Federalist Society faces internal divisions on the issue. While some members support centralized federal authority for AI regulation to promote innovation and competitiveness, traditional federalists argue that absent clear congressional preemption, states retain authority to regulate within their borders. This ideological tension within conservative legal circles makes Supreme Court outcomes particularly unpredictable.
The Path Forward: Congressional Action or Legal Stalemate
The executive order explicitly contemplates congressional action as the ultimate solution. Section 8 directs David Sacks and the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology to prepare legislative recommendations establishing a uniform federal AI policy framework that preempts conflicting state laws.
However, Congress has repeatedly declined to enact such legislation. In July 2025, the Senate voted 99-1 to remove a 10-year AI moratorium from the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” In December 2025, efforts to include AI preemption in the National Defense Authorization Act also failed. This overwhelming congressional resistance suggests limited appetite for comprehensive federal preemption, at least in the near term.
Senator Ted Cruz has drafted federal AI legislation promising to streamline regulations and potentially prevent state action, but passage remains uncertain. The Business Software Alliance, tracking AI legislation, expects the pace of state bills to accelerate in 2025 and 2026, with particular focus on high-risk AI applications in Connecticut, Texas, and California.
Multiple scenarios could unfold over the next several years. Congress could enact comprehensive federal AI legislation establishing national standards and explicitly preempting state laws, providing the clarity businesses seek but potentially weakening consumer protections if standards are minimal. Courts could invalidate the executive order while affirming state authority to regulate AI, establishing that absent congressional action, states retain regulatory power. Federal agencies could successfully establish preemption claims for narrow categories of AI regulation, creating a hybrid regime where some aspects are federally controlled while states regulate other aspects.
A protracted legal stalemate could emerge where multiple court decisions create conflicting precedents across circuits, maintaining uncertainty for years until the Supreme Court provides definitive guidance. Alternatively, a political compromise could emerge with federal legislation establishing baseline standards while preserving state authority to enact more stringent protections, similar to federal environmental law frameworks.
The Future of Privacy Forum noted that “with definitional questions still unsettled and new issues like agentic AI and algorithmic pricing on the horizon, state legislatures are poised to remain active in 2026.” States show no sign of retreating from AI regulation, suggesting continued federal-state tension regardless of litigation outcomes.
International dimensions further complicate the picture. The European Union’s AI Act establishes comprehensive requirements for AI systems used in EU markets, creating de facto global standards. U.S. companies must comply with EU requirements regardless of domestic regulatory arrangements, limiting the practical benefit of eliminating state-level requirements if companies still face stringent international standards.
China’s centralized approach to AI regulation, which the executive order cites as justification for federal preemption, operates within a fundamentally different political system. President Trump stated during the signing ceremony: “China is unified because they have one vote, that’s President Xi. He says do it, and that’s the end of that.” However, attempting to replicate China’s regulatory efficiency through executive action within America’s constitutional framework of separated powers and federalism presents inherent contradictions.
Implications for AI Innovation and Democracy
The federal-state conflict over AI regulation raises fundamental questions about balancing innovation with democratic accountability. Proponents of federal preemption emphasize the need for U.S. competitiveness in the global AI race, arguing that regulatory fragmentation creates inefficiency that advantages competitors in China and other nations with centralized governance.
The executive order’s stated purpose asserts that “United States leadership in Artificial Intelligence will promote United States national and economic security and dominance across many domains.” This frames AI regulation primarily through the lens of international competition rather than domestic policy choices about consumer protection, civil rights, and public safety.
However, critics argue that state laboratories of democracy serve important functions in emerging technology governance. States can experiment with different regulatory approaches, learning from successes and failures, while federal legislation often reflects lowest-common-denominator compromises that may inadequately protect consumers or excessively restrict innovation depending on political dynamics.
The Center for Democracy and Technology emphasized that “states shouldn’t feel constrained by this EO, and should instead forge ahead with AI legislation they feel will protect their residents.” This reflects the view that democratic responsiveness to local constituent concerns justifies state regulatory authority even if it creates compliance complexity for national companies.
The bipartisan opposition to federal preemption suggests that federalism concerns transcend typical partisan divisions on regulation. Both progressive states seeking strong consumer protections and conservative states valuing state sovereignty find common cause in opposing federal executive branch overreach into traditional state regulatory domains.
The ultimate resolution of this conflict will establish precedents extending beyond AI to all emerging technologies. If executive orders can preempt state laws regulating new technologies without congressional authorization, the balance of federal-state power shifts dramatically. If states successfully defend their regulatory authority, technology companies must continue navigating diverse state requirements but with greater democratic accountability.
Conclusion: Years of Legal Battle Ahead
The Trump administration’s executive order has initiated what will likely be the most significant federal-state constitutional conflict over technology regulation in modern American history. The stakes extend beyond AI to fundamental questions about the distribution of governmental power in a federal system.
Legal experts broadly agree that years of litigation lie ahead, with outcomes uncertain given novel constitutional questions, conflicting policy considerations, and evolving judicial precedents. Startups and established companies alike face a period of regulatory uncertainty that may prove more challenging than either comprehensive federal regulation or state-by-state compliance.
The AI Litigation Task Force will file lawsuits challenging state laws, states will defend their regulatory authority and likely bring their own challenges to the executive order, affected companies will navigate competing legal obligations while managing business risks, courts will grapple with fundamental questions of Commerce Clause limits and executive authority, and Congress will face pressure to resolve conflicts through legislation but must overcome deep political divisions.
For businesses operating in the AI space, the practical guidance is clear: prepare for prolonged uncertainty requiring flexible compliance strategies, maintain readiness to comply with the most restrictive state requirements while monitoring litigation developments, engage in policy advocacy at both state and federal levels, document AI systems thoroughly to demonstrate good-faith compliance efforts regardless of ultimate legal outcomes, and consider regulatory risk as a core business factor in strategic planning and investor relations.
The resolution of this conflict will define American AI governance for decades. Whether through judicial decisions affirming state authority, congressional legislation establishing federal standards, or negotiated compromise preserving dual regulatory roles, the outcome will determine how the United States balances innovation incentives with consumer protection, democratic accountability with competitive efficiency, and federal power with state sovereignty in the age of artificial intelligence.
As this legal battle unfolds over the next several years, one certainty emerges: the regulatory landscape for AI in America will be shaped not by executive decree alone, but through the constitutional system of checks and balances, with states, courts, and Congress all playing essential roles in determining how this transformative technology is governed.
Sources
- White House. (2025). Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/eliminating-state-law-obstruction-of-national-artificial-intelligence-policy/
- White House. (2025). Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Ensures a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/12/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-ensures-a-national-policy-framework-for-artificial-intelligence/
- NPR. (2025). Trump is trying to preempt state AI laws via an executive order. It may not be legal. https://www.npr.org/2025/12/11/nx-s1-5638562/trump-ai-david-sacks-executive-order
- CNBC. (2025). Trump signs executive order for single national AI regulation standard, limiting power of states. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/11/trump-signs-executive-order-for-single-national-ai-regulation-framework.html
- CNN Business. (2025). Trump signs executive order blocking states from enforcing their own regulations around AI. https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/11/tech/ai-trump-states-executive-order
- Ropes & Gray LLP. (2025). Trump Attempts to Preempt State AI Regulation Through Executive Order. https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2025/12/trump-attempts-to-preempt-state-ai-regulation-through-executive-order
- NBC News. (2025). Trump signs executive order seeking to block state laws on AI. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-signs-executive-order-seeking-ban-state-laws-ai-rcna248741
- The Washington Post. (2025). Trump signs executive order threatening to sue states that regulate AI. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/12/11/trump-executive-order-ai-states/
- Center for American Progress. (2025). President Trump’s AI National Policy Executive Order Is an Unambiguous Threat to States Beyond Just AI. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/president-trumps-ai-national-policy-executive-order-is-an-unambiguous-threat-to-states-beyond-just-ai/
- Seyfarth Shaw LLP. (2025). President Trump Signs Executive Order Preempting State AI Laws and Centralizing Federal Oversight. https://www.seyfarth.com/news-insights/president-trump-signs-executive-order-preempting-state-ai-laws-and-centralizing-federal-oversight.html
- National Association of Attorneys General. (2024). A Deep Dive into Colorado’s Artificial Intelligence Act. https://www.naag.org/attorney-general-journal/a-deep-dive-into-colorados-artificial-intelligence-act/
- Littler. (2024). Colorado’s Landmark AI Legislation Would Create Significant Compliance Burden for Employers. https://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/colorados-landmark-ai-legislation-would-create-significant-compliance
- Colorado General Assembly. (2024). Senate Bill 24-205. https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-205
- American Bar Association. (2024). Colorado Enacts Law Regulating High-Risk Artificial Intelligence Systems. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2024-july/colorado-enacts-law-regulating-high-risk-artificial-intelligence-systems/
- Epstein Becker Green. (2024). Colorado’s Historic SB 24-205 Concerning Consumer Protections in Interactions with AI Signed Into Law. https://www.workforcebulletin.com/colorados-historic-sb-24-205-concerning-consumer-protections-in-interactions-with-ai-signed-into-law-after-passing-state-senate-and-house
- Center for Democracy and Technology. (2024). Colorado’s Artificial Intelligence Act is a Step in the Right Direction. https://cdt.org/insights/colorados-artificial-intelligence-act-is-a-step-in-the-right-direction-it-must-be-strengthened-not-weakened/
- Brookings Institution. (2025). How different states are approaching AI. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-different-states-are-approaching-ai/
- Retail Industry Leaders Association. (2025). AI Legislation Across the U.S.: A 2025 End of Session Recap. https://www.rila.org/blog/2025/09/ai-legislation-across-the-states-a-2025-end-of-ses
- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. (2025). Strategic Artificial Intelligence Planning Alert: A State and Federal Regulatory Roadmap for 2025 Compliance. https://www.hinshawlaw.com/newsroom-updates-pcad-artificial-intelligence-state-federal-regulatory-roadmap-2025-compliance.html
- Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner. (2025). US state-by-state AI legislation snapshot. https://www.bclplaw.com/en-US/events-insights-news/us-state-by-state-artificial-intelligence-legislation-snapshot.html
- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck. (2025). States Can Continue Regulating AI—For Now. https://www.bhfs.com/insight/states-can-continue-regulating-ai-for-now/
- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. (2025). The Evolving Landscape of AI Employment Laws: What Employers Should Know in 2025. https://www.hunton.com/insights/publications/the-evolving-landscape-of-ai-employment-laws-what-employers-should-know-in-2025
- Goodwin Procter LLP. (2025). Federal AI Moratorium Out, State AI Regulation Gold Rush In. https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/07/insights-technology-aiml-federal-ai-moratorium-out
- Venable LLP. (2025). State AI Laws Continue Evolving in 2025. https://www.venable.com/insights/publications/2025/11/state-ai-laws-continue-evolving-in-2025
- Future of Privacy Forum. (2025). The State of State AI: Legislative Approaches to AI in 2025. https://fpf.org/blog/the-state-of-state-ai-legislative-approaches-to-ai-in-2025/
- Institute for Law & AI. (2025). Legal Issues Raised by the Proposed Executive Order on AI Preemption. https://law-ai.org/legal-issues-raised-by-the-proposed-executive-order-on-ai-preemption/
- Yale Journal on Regulation. (2025). Eliminating State Law “Obstruction” of National Artificial Intelligence Policy. https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/eliminating-state-law-obstruction-of-national-artificial-intelligence-policy-%E2%94%80-part-i/
- Jones Walker LLP. (2025). When Federal Preemption Meets AI Regulation: What Trump’s Draft Executive Order Means for Your Compliance Strategy. https://www.joneswalker.com/en/insights/blogs/ai-law-blog/when-federal-preemption-meets-ai-regulation-what-trumps-draft-executive-order-m.html
- FedScoop. (2025). Trump signs executive order curbing state regulation of AI. https://fedscoop.com/trump-signs-executive-order-curbing-state-regulation-of-ai/
- Center for Democracy and Technology. (2025). The Truth about Trump’s “No Rules” AI EO. https://cdt.org/insights/the-truth-about-trumps-no-rules-ai-eo/
- M Accelerator. (2025). AI Regulation Compliance for Startups: Navigating the Evolving Landscape. https://maccelerator.la/en/blog/entrepreneurship/ai-regulation-compliance-for-startups-navigating-the-evolving-landscape/
- Geeky Gadgets. (2025). Federal Regulation of AI vs State Laws: Impact on Startups. https://www.geeky-gadgets.com/federal-ai-rules-startups/
- AInvest. (2025). Regulatory Fragmentation in AI and U.S. Tech Competitiveness: Strategic Implications of Trump’s “One Rulebook” Executive Order for Investors. https://www.ainvest.com/news/regulatory-fragmentation-ai-tech-competitiveness-strategic-implications-trump-rulebook-executive-order-investors-2512/
- TechCrunch. (2025). Trump’s AI executive order promises ‘one rulebook’ — startups may get legal limbo instead. https://techcrunch.com/2025/12/12/trumps-ai-executive-order-promises-one-rulebook-startups-may-get-legal-limbo-instead/
- U.S. Chamber of Commerce. (2025). How Patchwork AI Regulations Threaten Small Businesses. https://www.uschamber.com/technology/the-hidden-cost-of-50-state-ai-laws-a-data-driven-breakdown
- Washington Legal Foundation. (2025). Federal Preemption and AI Regulation: A Law and Economics Case for Strategic Forbearance. https://www.wlf.org/2025/05/30/wlf-legal-pulse/federal-preemption-and-ai-regulation-a-law-and-economics-case-for-strategic-forbearance/
- PrometAI. (2025). AI Regulatory Trends and Their Impact on Startups 2025. https://prometai.app/blog/ai-regulatory-trends-2025-impact-on-startup-fundraising-growth
- The National Law Review. (2025). What to Expect in 2025: AI Legal Tech and Regulation – 65 Expert Predictions. https://natlawreview.com/article/what-expect-2025-ai-legal-tech-and-regulation-65-expert-predictions
