Here’s the Trump executive order that would ban state AI laws

President Donald Trump plans to sign an executive order as early as Friday that would give the federal government unilateral authority over the regulation of artificial intelligence, including the creation of an “AI Litigation Task Force” overseen by the attorney general, “whose sole responsibility will be to challenge state AI laws.”

According to a draft order obtained by The edge, The task force could sue states whose laws are seen as hindering the growth of the AI ​​industry, citing California’s recent laws on AI safety and “catastrophic risk,” as well as a Colorado law that prevents “algorithmic discrimination.” The task force will occasionally consult with a group of White House special advisers, including David Sacks, venture capitalist billionaire and special adviser on AI and crypto.

In recent days, Trump has repeatedly expressed his desire for a national moratorium on AI law, and reiterated it Wednesday during his appearance at the US-Saudi Investment Forum, presenting it as a way to combat “woke” ideology. “You can’t go across 50 states. You have to get one approval. 50 is a disaster. Because you’ll only have one awakened state and you’ll have to do everything awake. You’ll be back in the woke sector. We don’t have revivals in this country anymore. It’s practically illegal. You’ll have a few awakened ones.”

As part of the AI ​​Action Plan released earlier this year, Trump directed several federal agencies, including the FCC, to explore ways to circumvent “onerous” state and local regulations to promote the industry’s growth and innovation. The comprehensive executive order lays out a 90-day roadmap for several key agencies to implement this plan with the Department of Justice: the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Commerce, and the Federal Communications Commission.

Within 90 days of signing the order, the Secretary of Commerce will be directed to issue a report identifying states that are violating Trump’s AI policy directives, as well as research on states that may become ineligible for the Broadband Access and Deployment (BEAD) program, which funds rural broadband access for several states. The FTC, meanwhile, will be tasked with issuing a statement on whether states that force AI companies to change their algorithms would violate laws prohibiting unfair and deceptive practices.

During an appearance at Politico’s AI&Tech Summit in September, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr proposed a potential interpretation of the communications law that would allow them to override state law. “In fact, if a state or local law actually prohibits the deployment of this ‘modern infrastructure,’ then the FCC has the authority to intervene,” he told Politico’s Alex Burns.

Carr also raised the possibility that the FCC’s regulatory powers could override a potential new California law that would have required AI companies to disclose their security testing models, saying that would fulfill Trump’s goal of blocking “woke AI” that contained ideological bias.

He cited the European Union’s Digital Security Act and raised concerns: “Their AI models will not be truth-seeking AI models, but they will be woke AI models, AI models that promote DEI. And again, President Trump has, as part of his action plan, steps to make sure that we don’t have these types of AI models integrated into woke DEI that are are developing here As for California, again, I’m not exactly familiar with the full complexity of that, but to the extent that they’re moving in that direction and moving away from seeking the truth, that could be a problem.

The idea that the FCC should have veto power over state AI laws — as well as other parts of Trump’s order — could easily be challenged in court. But initiatives like the Litigation Working Group could still pose obstacles to states regulating AI.

Punchbowl News reported Wednesday that the executive order is the White House’s backup plan in case Congress fails to pass a moratorium on the National AI Act, this time through the upcoming reauthorization of the National Defense Authorization Act — a bill that absolutely must pass for the government to fund its national security apparatus.

Earlier this year, Congress attempted to place a moratorium on a Trump “Big, Beautiful Bill” that outlined spending for his second-term agenda, but that failed after a bipartisan group of senators voiced opposition to the law. Earlier this week, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise told Punchbowl News that Congress was considering a second attempt at a moratorium by attaching it to the NDAA.

But just like the fight against the Big, Beautiful Bill, a moratorium buried in passage of the NDAA could face opposition, especially if the penalty is the same: suspension of rural broadband funding. “The real question is, how much grant funding is needed to pressure state legislators to change their AI regulations? said Thierer. “This happened during the previous moratorium fight and some people were concerned that California would simply ignore budget threats related to BEAD, for example. It might take several revocations or budget limitations to really put pressure on a state as large as California.”