In a first step in this direction, we now know that the Trump administration has prepared an executive order to create an AI Litigation Task Force. This campaign aims to fight back against these state-level AI regulations with lawsuits. This decision is yet another sign of the climate state versus federal governance wars. These conversations are incredibly important given how quickly the AI landscape is changing.
The proposed AI Litigation Task Force is designed to address what the administration perceives as an inconsistent and fragmented approach to AI regulation across the nation. Former President Donald Trump emphasized the need for uniformity in a recent social media post, stating that the industry requires “one Federal Standard instead of a patchwork of 50 State Regulatory Regimes.” This discouragement of creative regulatory experimentation and deliberative narrative speaks to the administration’s deeper pursuit to consolidate regulatory power, especially in swiftly evolving technology spaces including AI.
Regardless of what the administration wants to do, there will likely be incredible pushback from the administration’s own Republican Party. Critics have raised past arguments against such a state regulation-blocking moratorium. This moratorium was actually originally Trump’s idea, tucked away in his “Big Beautiful Bill.” Perhaps the most striking feature of this bill was a 10-year moratorium on any U.S. state AI regulation. The language was decisively removed by the Senate with an awe-inspiringly bipartisan 99-1 vote. This move demonstrates a rift in the party over the best course on AI governance. Many Republicans have been advocating for a more localized and hence favorable regulatory framework.
This pushback against AI regulation has been particularly pronounced in the controversial boomtown of Silicon Valley, where many industry leaders have warned about federal overreach. This has drawn the ire of some key players in the Trump administration, including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. These companies have all been supportive of initiatives to make AI safer, like California’s SB 53. That challenging dance between what federal regulators want and what state activists will allow is still adding more chaos to the regulatory whirl.
This is apparently the focus of the Trump administration’s efforts to kill state-level AI regulations. Such a strategy might provoke new laws fights in an unpredictable environment. The executive order as proposed will undoubtedly be a catalyst for many robust debates. These contentious debates will underscore the balance of power between state and federal authorities as they determine the future of these disruptive AI technologies.
“one Federal Standard instead of a patchwork of 50 State Regulatory Regimes” – Donald Trump
