President Donald Trump is reportedly considering a draft executive order aimed at pressuring states to cease regulating artificial intelligence, a move that mirrors discussions among some members of Congress to temporarily block state-level AI regulations. This initiative stems from the belief held by Trump and some Republicans that existing and potential state regulations could stifle innovation and economic growth within the rapidly evolving AI sector.

However, this perspective faces significant opposition from critics across the political spectrum, as well as civil liberties and consumer rights organizations. These groups warn that prohibiting state regulation would disproportionately benefit large AI corporations by limiting essential oversight. While the draft executive order is subject to change, it underscores a crucial debate over the appropriate level of governance for AI technology in the United States.

Currently, four states, Colorado, California, Utah, and Texas, have enacted laws establishing rules for AI within the private sector, according to the International Association of Privacy Professionals. These legislative efforts generally focus on restricting the collection of specific personal information and mandating greater transparency from companies developing and deploying AI systems. The impetus behind these laws is the pervasive integration of AI into everyday life, where it increasingly influences critical decisionsm including job interviews, apartment leases, home loans, and access to certain medical care. Research has shown that AI can exhibit biases and make errors, sometimes inadvertently favoring certain genders or races.

Calli Schroeder, director of the AI & Human Rights Program at the public interest group EPIC, highlighted the concern: “It’s not a matter of AI makes mistakes and humans never do. With a human, I can say, ‘Hey, explain, how did you come to that conclusion, what factors did you consider?’ With an AI, I can’t ask any of that, and I can’t find that out. And frankly, half the time the programmers of the AI couldn’t answer that question.” More ambitious state proposals aim to compel private companies to provide transparency and conduct assessments of potential discrimination risks associated with AI programs. Beyond these broader regulations, many states have targeted specific applications of AI, such as prohibiting deepfakes in elections and nonconsensual pornography, or regulating government agencies' use of AI.

The draft executive order under consideration would instruct federal agencies to identify state AI regulations deemed burdensome and exert pressure on states to refrain from enacting them. This pressure could include withholding federal funding or challenging state laws in court. Additionally, the order would initiate a process to develop a less stringent, nationwide regulatory framework intended to supersede existing and future state AI laws. Trump’s rationale is that a patchwork of 50 different state regulations impedes the growth of AI companies and risks allowing China to gain a competitive advantage over the U.S. in the global AI race. He has also expressed concern about state regulations leading to what he terms “Woke AI.” A senior Trump administration official, speaking anonymously, indicated that the draft is not final but that Trump tentatively plans to sign the order on a Friday. Concurrently, House Republican leadership, including Majority Leader Steve Scalise, is reportedly discussing a proposal for a temporary federal block on state AI regulations, though specifics remain undefined.

TechNet, an advocacy group representing major tech companies like Google and Amazon, has argued that pausing state regulations would benefit emerging AI companies and give lawmakers time to craft a balanced national regulatory framework that supports innovation while ensuring accountability.

However, efforts to establish federal preemption over state AI regulation have faced significant hurdles, including opposition from within the Republican party itself. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis publicly denounced a federal law barring state AI regulation as “Not acceptable”, calling it a “subsidy to Big Tech” that would prevent states from protecting citizens against predatory applications targeting children and online censorship of political speech. Cody Venzke, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, echoed this view: “The American people do not want AI to be discriminatory, unsafe, or hallucinatory. So I don’t think anyone is interested in winning the AI race if it means AI that is not trustworthy.”

This broad opposition underscores the complex challenge of balancing innovation, state autonomy, and public protection in the evolving landscape of AI governance.