Donald Trump is once again pressing to stop state regulating AI, a move that critics argue could leave Americans vulnerable to serious technology risks. The push comes in the form of a draft executive order that aims to centralize AI oversight in Washington, raising alarm bells about whether safety safeguards will take a back seat to innovation.
The Trump administration’s draft executive order would direct the Department of Justice to challenge state AI laws in court. The rationale: those laws interfere with interstate commerce and duplicate federal authority.
Under the proposal, a new “AI Litigation Task Force” would be established within the DOJ specifically to file lawsuits against states that pass their own AI regulations.
At the same time, other agencies would get involved. Commerce would review state AI laws it deems burdensome. Broadband funding could be withheld from states with rules that don’t align with the administration’s national framework.
Trump argues that a patchwork of state-level AI laws would stifle U.S. innovation and put the country at a disadvantage, especially compared to China. He wants a single, uniform national standard for AI, one that’s more predictable for companies and accelerates technological growth.
In his view, too many state rules will create fragmentation, slow down investment, and weaken America’s leadership in a critical field.
Not everyone agrees. A large coalition of state attorneys general — representing both Democratic and Republican-led states — strongly opposes Trump’s proposal. They argue that a blanket moratorium on state AI regulation deprives communities of needed protections against real harms such as discrimination, deepfake fraud, and bias in automated decision-making.
More than 260 state lawmakers have joined the fight, warning that AI’s rapid evolution demands flexibility and localized controls. These critics say states are uniquely positioned to respond to emerging risks more quickly than Congress or the federal government can.
Technology safety advocates caution that blocking states from acting could leave major gaps in accountability. Many states are already leading on AI regulation: Colorado, for example, requires risk assessments for high-risk systems. Virginia has proposed anti-discrimination rules around algorithmic decision-making.
If states lose the power to regulate, there’s real concern that powerful AI firms will operate without robust oversight. Some fear the draft order could hobble consumer protections, transparency requirements, and rules for liability, all while the technology grows even more powerful.
Preempting state AI laws via executive order raises major constitutional and legal questions. Some experts argue that enforcing such a ban would overstep presidential authority. Critics highlight that preemption is typically the role of Congress, not the executive branch.
Politically, the proposal isn’t without opposition. Even within Trump’s own party, some Republicans argue for preserving states’ rights. That division complicates efforts to impose a nationwide moratorium.
If Trump’s plan succeeds, the resulting system could shift all regulatory power over AI to the federal government, effectively limiting state-level experimentation and protections in favor of a unified but potentially weaker national standard. Critics warn this could stifle innovation in safety-first regulations.
On the other hand, proponents argue it could help the U.S. stay competitive on the global stage by avoiding a tangled web of state mandates.
The debate signals a larger tension in AI governance: balancing technological growth with accountability and safety. As AI becomes more embedded in everyday life, how we regulate it now could shape everything from consumer rights to national security.
Trump’s renewed push to block state regulating AI represents a bold federal-over-state strategy. While the administration presents it as necessary for innovation, opponents warn it could weaken safety protections. The battle playing out now could determine who controls the future of AI in America — states acting on the ground, or a centralized federal government.
