President Donald Trump is contemplating the signing of an executive order as soon as Friday, which would grant the federal government exclusive authority to regulate artificial intelligence, including the establishment of an “AI Litigation Task Force” overseen by the attorney general, “whose sole duty shall be to contest State AI laws.”
As per a draft of the order acquired by The Verge, the Task Force would possess the authority to sue states with laws considered to inhibit the development of the AI sector, referencing California’s new laws on AI safety and “catastrophic risk” as well as a Colorado law that bars “algorithmic discrimination.” The task force will occasionally seek advice from a group of White House advisers, which includes David Sacks, a billionaire venture capitalist and the adviser for AI and cryptocurrency.
Recently, Trump has continuously expressed his intent to impose a state AI law moratorium, echoing it on Wednesday during his talk at the US-Saudi Investment Forum, framing it as a strategy to combat “woke” ideology. “Navigating through 50 states is not feasible. You need a singular approval. Fifty states create chaos. One woke state leads to a uniform woke response. We have eradicated woke culture in this nation. It’s nearly illegal. You will encounter a few wokesters.”
Under the AI Action Plan released earlier this year, Trump tasked various federal agencies, including the FCC, to find methods to bypass “burdensome” state and local regulations to foster industry growth and innovation. The comprehensive executive order outlines a 90-day strategy for several key agencies to carry out that plan alongside the Department of Justice: the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Commerce, and the Federal Communications Commission.
Within 90 days of the order’s signing, the secretary of commerce will be instructed to release a report identifying states that violate Trump’s AI policy directives, as well as investigate which states may risk disqualification from the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program, which finances rural broadband access for multiple states. The FTC will also be directed to assess whether states mandating AI companies to modify their algorithms would breach laws against unfair and deceptive practices.
During an appearance at Politico’s AI & Tech Summit in September, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr suggested a possible interpretation of the Communications Act that would empower them to override state laws. “If a state or local regulation effectively obstructs the implementation of this ‘modern infrastructure,’ then the FCC has the authority to intercede,” he stated to Politico’s Alex Burns.
Carr also raised the potential for the FCC’s regulatory powers to negate a new California law that would require AI companies to reveal their safety testing frameworks, asserting that it would align with Trump’s objective of preventing “woke AI” imbued with ideological biases.
He cited the Digital Safety Act of the European Union and expressed his concerns that “their AI models will not be oriented toward truth, but will instead represent woke AI models, endorsing DEI principles. Therefore, President Trump has, as part of his initiative, measures to ensure the avoidance of such woke DEI-inclusive AI models being developed in our country. Regarding California, I’m not fully versed with all the details there, but if they are heading down that path and moving away from truth-seeking, it could present issues.”
The idea that the FCC should have veto authority over state AI laws — along with other elements of Trump’s directive — may readily face legal challenges. Nevertheless, initiatives like the litigation task force could effectively hinder states’ ability to regulate AI.
Punchbowl News reported on Wednesday that the executive order serves as a contingency for the White House if Congress is unable to enact a moratorium on state AI legislation, this time during the impending reauthorization of the National Defense Authorization Act — a crucial bill that must pass for government funding for national security operations.
Earlier this year, an effort was made in Congress to incorporate a moratorium into Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” which outlined spending for his second-term agenda; however, it faltered after a bipartisan coalition of senators opposed the initiative. Earlier this week, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise informed Punchbowl News that Congress is contemplating another attempt at a moratorium by tying it to the NDAA.
However, similar to the Big Beautiful Bill dispute, a moratorium hidden within the NDAA’s passage may encounter resistance, especially if the sanction remains the same: withholding funding for rural broadband. “The essential question is, how significant of a financial incentive is necessary to influence state legislators to alter their AI regulations?” Adam Thierer, a senior fellow at the R Street Institute who initiated the concept of an AI moratorium, stated to The Verge. “This issue emerged during the previous moratorium debate, with concerns that California might disregard BEAD-related budget threats, for instance. It may require several budget revocations or limitations to truly pressure a state as substantial as California.”
