AI Executive Order Opens Door to Federal-State Legal Battles

On December 11, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order, Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (the “Order”), seeking to establish a national policy framework for artificial intelligence (AI), with the stated objective of promoting U.S. leadership and global dominance in AI while preempting conflicting state laws and minimizing regulatory burdens. This action follows prior efforts to remove barriers to AI innovation and responds to concerns that a fragmented state-by-state regulatory landscape impedes compliance, stifles innovation, and threatens national and economic security. This DE Insight examines how the Order reshapes the balance of federal and state authority over AI, the legal battles it is likely to trigger, and the practical consequences for companies, developers, and state governments navigating this shifting regulatory landscape.

Key Provisions of the Executive Order

1. Preemption of Conflicting State Laws: The Order asserts that a unified federal approach is necessary to avoid a patchwork of state regulations that complicate compliance, particularly for startups and emerging companies. It specifically targets state laws that require AI models to embed ideological bias or alter truthful outputs, as well as those that impermissibly regulate beyond state borders and impact interstate commerce.
2. Establishment of the AI Litigation Task Force: Within 30 days, the Attorney General is directed to create an AI Litigation Task Force. This group will be responsible for challenging state AI laws deemed inconsistent with the federal policy, including those that may be unconstitutional, preempted by federal regulation, or otherwise unlawful. The Task Force also will consult with senior advisors on the emergence of specific state laws warranting challenge.
3. Evaluation of State AI Laws: The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with relevant advisors, is tasked with publishing an evaluation of existing state AI laws within 90 days. This evaluation will identify “onerous” laws that conflict with federal policy, particularly those compelling AI models to produce deceptive outputs or requiring disclosures that may violate constitutional protections.
4. Restrictions on State Funding: States with identified “onerous” AI laws through the Secretary of Commerce’s evaluation will be ineligible for certain federal funding under the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program, to the extent permitted by law. The Secretary of Commerce will be directed to issue a notice that informs states with such laws of their ineligibility. Federal agencies are also instructed to assess discretionary grant programs and may condition funding on states refraining from enacting or enforcing conflicting AI laws.
5. Federal Reporting and Disclosure Standard: The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is directed to consider adopting a federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that would preempt conflicting state requirements within 90 days of the Secretary of Commerce’s state-law evaluation.
6. Preemption of State Laws Mandating Deceptive Conduct: The Federal Trade Commission is instructed to issue a policy statement clarifying that state laws requiring alterations to truthful AI outputs may be preempted by the Federal Trade Commission Act’s prohibition on unfair and deceptive acts or practices.
7. Legislative Recommendations: The Order calls for the preparation of legislative recommendations to establish a uniform federal policy framework for AI, preempting conflicting state laws. However, certain areas—such as child safety protections, AI infrastructure, state government procurement, and other specified topics—are excluded from preemption.

Implications for Stakeholders

The Order signals a significant shift toward federal preemption in the regulation of AI, with immediate and long-term implications for companies, developers, and state governments. Entities operating in the AI sector should anticipate increased federal oversight and potential legal challenges to state laws that conflict with the new national policy. States with restrictive or ideologically driven AI regulations may face loss of federal funding and litigation. Companies should review their compliance programs in light of the evolving federal framework and monitor further legislative developments.

In summary, the Order aims to foster innovation, protect constitutional rights, and maintain U.S. competitiveness in AI by establishing a minimally burdensome, unified federal regulatory environment and curtailing conflicting state-level interventions.  However—as has been the case with similarly sweeping regulatory efforts—states are likely to raise numerous constitutional challenges against the Order, and policy debates are likely to continue in both Congress and federal courts throughout the country. Amid such uncertainty, businesses should be vigilant in their efforts to comply with current AI regulations and restrictions to manage current and future risk while more permanent standards are implemented.

——————————————————————–

This DarrowEverett Insight should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. This Insight is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your attorney concerning any particular situation and any specific legal question you may have. Please reach out to us if you need help addressing any of the issues discussed in this Insight, or any other issues or concerns you may have relating to your business. We are ready to help guide you through these challenging times.

This Insight does not constitute written tax advice as described in 31 C.F.R. §10, et seq. and is not intended or written by us to be used and/or relied on as written tax advice for any purpose including, without limitation, the marketing of any transaction addressed herein. Any U.S. federal tax advice rendered by DarrowEverett LLP shall be conspicuously labeled as such, shall include a discussion of all relevant facts and circumstances, as well as of any representations, statements, findings, or agreements (including projections, financial forecasts, or appraisals) upon which we rely, applicable to transactions discussed therein in compliance with 31 C.F.R. §10.37, shall relate the applicable law and authorities to the facts, and shall set forth any applicable limits on the use of such advice.