Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence
This Presidential Action establishes the policy that the United States must sustain global Artificial Intelligence (AI) dominance through a minimally burdensome national framework, overriding conflicting state regulations that threaten innovation.
The order mandates the creation of an AI Litigation Task Force within the Justice Department to challenge specific state AI laws deemed unlawful or unduly burdensome.
Furthermore, it directs the Department of Commerce and the Federal Trade Commission to evaluate existing state laws—identifying those that compel alterations to truthful AI outputs—and establishes mechanisms to restrict federal funding for states maintaining conflicting regulations, while instructing staff to prepare a unified legislative recommendation for Congress.
Arguments For
Promoting National Technological Dominance: Establishing a unified national policy framework prevents a fragmented 50-state regulatory patchwork, which supporters argue stifles innovation and puts the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage against adversaries in the AI race.
Reducing Cumbersome Compliance Burdens: By preventing overly restrictive or ideologically motivated state regulations (like the Colorado example cited), the order frees U.S. AI companies, especially startups, to innovate rapidly.
Ensuring Constitutional Consistency: Overriding state laws that might compel false outputs or violate free speech principles (First Amendment) shields companies from potential litigation based on state mandates that conflict with federal law or constitutional protections.
Streamlining Infrastructure Funding: Conditioning federal broadband funding (BEAD Program) on adherence to the national policy ensures that infrastructure investments support the national goal of widespread AI adoption and connectivity, rather than fragmented local rules.
Arguments Against
Federal Overreach and Preemption: Critics argue the order constitutes an aggressive federal move to preempt state authority to regulate emerging technologies within their own jurisdictions, bypassing the normal legislative process in Congress.
Risk of Ignoring Local Needs: A single, minimally burdensome national standard may fail to address specific consumer protection, privacy, or ethical concerns unique to individual states or communities.
Chilling Effect on State Innovation: Directly challenging state laws, even those intended to protect citizens (e.g., banning 'algorithmic discrimination'), could discourage states from pioneering necessary protective regulations for their residents.
Potential for Unintended Censorship: Directing the FTC and establishing a task force to challenge state laws based on truthful outputs raises concerns that the order might be used to prevent AI models from addressing sensitive societal biases, potentially infringing on protected speech.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
This standard opening clause invokes the President's constitutional and statutory powers to issue a binding directive.
Section 1. Purpose. United States leadership in Artificial Intelligence (AI) will promote United States national and economic security and dominance across many domains. Pursuant to Executive Order 14179 of January 23, 2025 (Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence), I revoked my predecessor’s attempt to paralyze this industry and directed my Administration to remove barriers to United States AI leadership. My Administration has already done tremendous work to advance that objective, including by updating existing Federal regulatory frameworks to remove barriers to and encourage adoption of AI applications across sectors. These efforts have already delivered tremendous benefits to the American people and led to trillions of dollars of investments across the country. But we remain in the earliest days of this technological revolution and are in a race with adversaries for supremacy within it.
To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation. But excessive State regulation thwarts this imperative. First, State-by-State regulation by definition creates a patchwork of 50 different regulatory regimes that makes compliance more challenging, particularly for start-ups. Second, State laws are increasingly responsible for requiring entities to embed ideological bias within models. For example, a new Colorado law banning “algorithmic discrimination” may even force AI models to produce false results in order to avoid a “differential treatment or impact” on protected groups. Third, State laws sometimes impermissibly regulate beyond State borders, impinging on interstate commerce.
My Administration must act with the Congress to ensure that there is a minimally burdensome national standard — not 50 discordant State ones. The resulting framework must forbid State laws that conflict with the policy set forth in this order. That framework should also ensure that children are protected, censorship is prevented, copyrights are respected, and communities are safeguarded. A carefully crafted national framework can ensure that the United States wins the AI race, as we must.
Until such a national standard exists, however, it is imperative that my Administration takes action to check the most onerous and excessive laws emerging from the States that threaten to stymie innovation.
The purpose of this order is to ensure U.S. dominance in Artificial Intelligence by removing barriers to innovation, specifically targeting state-level regulations.
The President argues that a patchwork of 50 different state regimes makes compliance difficult for businesses and may compel models to produce biased or false results.
Pending Congressional action on a unified national standard, the Executive Branch must immediately stop excessively burdensome state laws that threaten to halt technological progress.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to sustain and enhance the United States’ global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI.
This section explicitly states the overarching federal policy: maintaining global AI leadership through a national framework that imposes minimal regulatory burdens.
Sec. 3. AI Litigation Task Force. Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall establish an AI Litigation Task Force (Task Force) whose sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws inconsistent with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order, including on grounds that such laws unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce, are preempted by existing Federal regulations, or are otherwise unlawful in the Attorney General’s judgment, including, if appropriate, those laws identified pursuant to section 4 of this order. The Task Force shall consult from time to time with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and the Assistant to the President and Counsel to the President regarding the emergence of specific State AI laws that warrant challenge.
The Attorney General must create an AI Litigation Task Force within 30 days.
This group’s exclusive purpose is to legally challenge state AI laws that contradict the national policy.
Challenges can be based on arguments that the state laws illegally regulate commerce between states, conflict with existing federal regulations, or are otherwise unlawful, including those identified in the next section.
Sec. 4. Evaluation of State AI Laws. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, consistent with the Secretary’s authorities under 47 U.S.C. 902(b), shall, in consultation with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and the Assistant to the President and Counsel to the President, publish an evaluation of existing State AI laws that identifies onerous laws that conflict with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order, as well as laws that should be referred to the Task Force established pursuant to section 3 of this order. That evaluation of State AI laws shall, at a minimum, identify laws that require AI models to alter their truthful outputs, or that may compel AI developers or deployers to disclose or report information in a manner that would violate the First Amendment or any other provision of the Constitution. The evaluation may additionally identify State laws that promote AI innovation consistent with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order.
The Secretary of Commerce must publish an evaluation of state AI laws within 90 days, consulting with various White House advisors.
This evaluation must pinpoint burdensome laws conflicting with the national policy and recommend which ones should be referred to the Litigation Task Force.
Specifically, the evaluation must flag laws forcing AI models to change truthful outputs or requiring disclosures that unlawfully violate the First Amendment or other constitutional rights.
Sec. 5. Restrictions on State Funding. (a) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, through the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, shall issue a Policy Notice specifying the conditions under which States may be eligible for remaining funding under the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program that was saved through my Administration’s “Benefit of the Bargain” reforms, consistent with 47 U.S.C. 1702(e)-(f). That Policy Notice must provide that States with onerous AI laws identified pursuant to section 4 of this order are ineligible for non-deployment funds, to the maximum extent allowed by Federal law. The Policy Notice must also describe how a fragmented State regulatory landscape for AI threatens to undermine BEAD-funded deployments, the growth of AI applications reliant on high-speed networks, and BEAD’s mission of delivering universal, high-speed connectivity.
(b) Executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall assess their discretionary grant programs in consultation with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto and determine whether agencies may condition such grants on States either not enacting an AI law that conflicts with the policy of this order, including any AI law identified pursuant to section 4 or challenged pursuant to section 3 of this order, or, for those States that have enacted such laws, on those States entering into a binding agreement with the relevant agency not to enforce any such laws during the performance period in which it receives the discretionary funding.
This section restricts state access to federal funding if they maintain onerous AI laws.
The Secretary of Commerce must issue a notice making states with such laws ineligible for certain BEAD program funds, arguing that fragmented AI regulation undermines broadband deployment.
Additionally, other executive agencies must review their discretionary grants to see if they can condition funding on states either stopping enforcement of conflicting AI laws or entering agreements not to enforce them during the funding period.
Sec. 6. Federal Reporting and Disclosure Standard. Within 90 days of the publication of the identification specified in section 4 of this order, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission shall, in consultation with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, initiate a proceeding to determine whether to adopt a Federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that preempts conflicting State laws.
The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must begin a process within 90 days of the State law evaluation to consider adopting a standardized federal reporting and disclosure rule for AI models.
The goal of this proceeding is for the federal standard to override any contradictory state laws on the matter.
Sec. 7. Preemption of State Laws Mandating Deceptive Conduct in AI Models. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission shall, in consultation with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, issue a policy statement on the application of the Federal Trade Commission Act’s prohibition on unfair and deceptive acts or practices under 15 U.S.C. 45 to AI models. That policy statement must explain the circumstances under which State laws that require alterations to the truthful outputs of AI models are preempted by the Federal Trade Commission Act’s prohibition on engaging in deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce.
The Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) must issue a policy statement within 90 days explaining how the FTC Act's existing rules against unfair and deceptive acts apply to AI models.
This statement is specifically required to detail when state laws that force AI models to produce untrue outputs are overridden (preempted) by the federal prohibition against deceptive commercial practices.
Sec. 8. Legislation. (a) The Special Advisor for AI and Crypto and the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology shall jointly prepare a legislative recommendation establishing a uniform Federal policy framework for AI that preempts State AI laws that conflict with the policy set forth in this order.
(b) The legislative recommendation called for in subsection (a) of this section shall not propose preempting otherwise lawful State AI laws relating to:
(i) child safety protections;
(ii) AI compute and data center infrastructure, other than generally applicable permitting reforms;
(iii) State government procurement and use of AI; and
(iv) other topics as shall be determined.
The Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, alongside the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, must jointly develop a proposal for Congress to create a uniform federal AI policy that supersedes conflicting state laws.
However, this legislative proposal must exclude recommendations that would preempt state laws concerning child safety, the physical infrastructure of AI compute centers (except for general permitting changes), and how state governments themselves procure and use AI.
Sec. 9. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Commerce.
This section contains standard legal boilerplate language.
It confirms that the order does not affect the statutory authority of executive departments or the OMB’s budgetary functions.
It mandates implementation must follow existing law and available funding.
Critically, it clarifies that the order creates no enforceable legal rights for any private party against the government.
Finally, the Department of Commerce is assigned responsibility for the order's publication costs.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 11, 2025.
This concludes the document, indicating it was signed by President Donald J. Trump from the White House on December 11, 2025.
The post Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence appeared first on The White House.
This is standard attribution text indicating the title of the action as published on the White House website and the original source location.