On December 11, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled "Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence," declaring it the policy of the United States to achieve “global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI.”¹ The Executive Order does not itself preempt, repeal, or invalidate any state AI law. Instead, it directs a sequenced series of federal agency actions that could result in litigation challenging state AI laws, new agency guidance on the application of existing federal statutes, and conditions on federal funding. Attorney General Pam Bondi established the Department of Justice's AI Litigation Task Force on January 9, 2026, tasked with challenging state AI laws in federal court on grounds including unconstitutional burdens on interstate commerce, preemption by existing federal regulations, and any other basis the Attorney General deems appropriate.² But the Task Force has not yet filed any lawsuits — in part because the Executive Order contemplates a sequenced process in which the Department of Commerce first identifies specific state laws for referral. 

The first deliverable is the Commerce Department's evaluation of existing state AI laws under Section 4 of the Executive Order. The Secretary of Commerce must publish an assessment identifying laws deemed "onerous" and in conflict with the administration's policy, with a particular focus on laws that "require AI models to alter their truthful outputs" or that compel disclosures that may violate the First Amendment.³ This evaluation will identify specific state laws that the administration considers problematic and may refer to the DOJ Task Force. The scope of that list will be closely watched: the Executive Order names only Colorado's AI Act — which requires reasonable care to prevent "algorithmic discrimination" in high-risk AI systems and is currently scheduled to take effect June 30, 2026⁴ — but the universe of potentially affected laws is much broader, including California's Transparency in Frontier AI Act (SB 53), California's Generative Artificial Intelligence Training Data Transparency Act (AB 2013), the New York RAISE Act (signed December 19, 2025), and the growing body of state laws addressing deepfakes, chatbot disclosures, and automated decision-making in employment. Whether the Commerce Department confines its evaluation to a handful of major omnibus AI statutes or casts a wider net across the scores of narrower laws enacted in states during 2025 will indicate the scope of the administration’s enforcement intentions. Separately, the Executive Order directs the Commerce Department to issue a Policy Notice conditioning remaining Broadband Equity Access and Deployment ("BEAD") Program nondeployment funds — estimated at approximately $21 billion — on states not maintaining "onerous" AI laws.⁵

The second major deliverable due by March 11 is a policy statement from the Federal Trade Commission on the application of Section 5 of the FTC Act — the prohibition on unfair and deceptive acts or practices — to AI models.⁶ The Executive Order directs the FTC Chairman to explain the circumstances under which state laws that "require alterations to the truthful outputs of AI models" are preempted by the FTC Act. The underlying theory is that certain state laws requiring AI developers to adjust model outputs to mitigate bias could, in the administration’s view, compel the production of outputs that are “deceptive” under federal law — a theory that commentators have described as untested. 

For companies developing or deploying AI, the practical takeaway is that the regulatory environment is about to become more uncertain, not less. The Commerce Department's evaluation will reveal which state laws the federal government considers "onerous," but it will not itself invalidate those laws — that will require litigation, and any meaningful relief depends on the DOJ filing suit and a court granting an injunction, a process that could take months or years.⁷ State laws that have already taken effect, including the California and Texas AI governance frameworks, remain fully enforceable absent court action, and companies should continue their compliance efforts. At the same time, organizations should begin mapping which of their AI-related obligations could be affected by a federal challenge, prepare to adapt compliance programs if preliminary relief is granted in specific jurisdictions, and monitor three developments closely: (1) the breadth of the Commerce Department's evaluation when it is published; (2) the legal theory the FTC articulates in its policy statement; and (3) whether the DOJ Task Force moves quickly from the Commerce referrals to actual litigation — and if so, against which states first. 

Footnotes

[1] Executive Order, “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” The White House (Dec. 11, 2025).

[2] Sarah N. Lynch & Lauren Fichten, “DOJ creates task force to challenge state AI regulations,” CBS News (Jan. 9, 2026).

[3] Executive Order, supra note 1, § 4.

[4] Colo. SB 24-205 (the Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act).

[5] Executive Order, supra note 1, § 5. The BEAD Program was established under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (47 U.S.C. § 1702).

[6] Executive Order, supra note 1, § 7.

[7] Executive Order, supra note 1, § 3.