LEGAL ALERT: President Trump’s Executive Order to Ensure a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence
President Trump’s executive order Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (the “EO”) serves as part of a movement to create a unified national policy framework for AI. The EO seeks to limit state laws that burden AI innovation and conflict with federal AI policy and protect children and communities, prevent censorship, and uphold copyrights. Ultimately, the goal is to position the United States as the global leader in AI by replacing a “patchwork” of state regulations with a minimally burdensome national AI policy framework.
The EO emerges against a backdrop of robust state legislative activity on AI, with a multitude of AI-related bills introduced nationwide throughout 2025. According to the EO, state-by-state AI regulation undermines innovation, complicates compliance, impedes interstate commerce and can force AI systems to embed ideological constraints or alter truthful outputs. Until a stable national standard exists, the order aims to limit burdensome State laws that threaten to prevent innovation.
Key Provisions and Directives
- Department of Justice AI Litigation Task Force. Under the EO, the Attorney General is required to establish an AI Litigation Task Force whose duty is to challenge state AI laws that conflict with federal policy. These challenges may be based on claims that state laws improperly interfere with interstate commerce, are preempted by federal law, or other theories that the Attorney General deems appropriate.
- Evaluation of State AI Laws. Within 90 days, the Secretary of Commerce must publish a comprehensive evaluation of state AI laws, identifying those deemed “onerous” or conflicting with the federal policy. In this regard, the EO singles out laws that could require AI systems to alter truthful outputs or mandate disclosures that impede First Amendment or other constitutional rights. The Secretary is also tasked with flagging laws for referral to the DOJ Task Force and, where appropriate, identifying state policies that the Secretary deems consistent with national policy and promoting innovation.
- Conditional Federal Funding and BEAD Program. The EO directs the Secretary of Commerce to issue a policy notice within 90 days describing the conditions under which states may be eligible to receive remaining funds from the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program. States whose AI laws are deemed onerous by Secretary will be ineligible. Other federal agencies are also directed to consider whether discretionary grants can be conditioned on states not enacting or not enforcing laws incompatible with the federal AI policy
- Federal Reporting and Disclosure Standard. Within 90 days after the Secretary of Commerce evaluation, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) Chair is directed to initiate a proceeding to consider adopting a federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that would preempt conflicting state laws.
- Federal Trade Commission Policy Statement on AI Model Regulation. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) Chair must issue a policy statement within 90 days clarifying how the FTC Act applies to AI models and under what circumstances state laws that mandate altering truthful outputs might be preempted by the FTC Act’s prohibition on deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce.
- Legislative Recommendations for Federal AI Framework. The EO directs the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto and the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology to develop legislative recommendations to establish a uniform federal AI policy framework that preempts state laws in conflict with the national policy. These recommendations should not include preemptions of state authority regarding child safety protections, AI compute and data center infrastructure or state government procurement and use of AI.
Implications: What Comes Next
President Trump’s executive order may give rise to litigation over federal preemption, the limits of executive authority, and the permissibility of conditioning federal funds. In the long term, the establishment of a genuinely uniform AI regulatory regime may depend on congressional action rather than executive order alone. As AI policy rapidly develops, ongoing monitoring of regulatory and legislative changes will be essential to ensure compliance. If you or your business may be affected by these changes, please contact Kessler Collins to assist you in navigating these challenges and protecting your interests.
