AI Regulation Conflict
States Forge Ahead with AI Regulations Despite Trump Administration's Efforts to Block Them
Six months after President Trump signed an executive order warning states not to regulate artificial intelligence, states are increasingly doing it anyway. AP News reports that states are now targeting AI bias in hiring, chatbot safety for children, and the risk of AI-caused disasters — defying a White House directive that critics from both parties called federal overreach.
Trump's December 2025 order directed the Attorney General to build an AI Litigation Task Force to challenge state laws that are more than "minimally burdensome" to the industry. But rather than backing down, state lawmakers have returned with narrower, more targeted bills — ones they argue fall squarely within states' traditional power to protect their residents, according to Newsday.
Trump's Two Orders Tried to Lock In Federal Control
Trump moved fast after taking office. On January 23, 2025, he signed Executive Order 14179, revoking the Biden administration's AI oversight rules and ordering agencies to prioritize deregulation, according to The White House. Then, on December 11, 2025, he signed a second order — nicknamed the "One Rule" EO — that set up the litigation task force and made clear Washington wanted one national AI policy, not 50 state ones.
Trump put it bluntly. "Letting states clutter the regulatory playing field for an industry that's spending trillions of dollars... is too risky in the race with China for AI superiority," he said, according to Newsday. In March 2026, the White House followed up with a four-page "National Policy Framework" urging Congress to override state AI laws and pass its own rules on child safety and intellectual property.
States Pivot to Smaller Bills That Are Harder to Kill
Earlier broad efforts failed. California's SB 1047 would have required a "kill switch" and safety audits for any AI model costing more than $100 million to train. Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed it in late 2024, saying it was too sweeping, according to Gibson Dunn. That defeat taught lawmakers a lesson: go smaller.
Now states are coming back with surgical strikes. California and Pennsylvania are advancing bills on AI bias in hiring and chatbot safety for kids, AP News reports. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser has warned the state will sue to defend its "algorithmic discrimination" bans. California Governor Newsom signed his own executive order in May 2026 asserting state leadership on AI's economic impact on workers, according to Akin Gump.
Bipartisan Backlash Puts Congress in the Middle
Trump's push to silence states has not gone over smoothly — even among Republicans. In June 2026, a bipartisan pair of House members introduced the Great American AI Act, according to Akin Gump. It would pause state AI laws for just three years — not eliminate them permanently, as the White House wants. That gap shows real tension inside the GOP over how far to go.
Civil liberties groups have been sharp in their criticism. The ACLU and consumer rights advocates argue that blocking state laws would amount to a "gift to AI giants," stripping residents of protection against automated discrimination in housing and insurance, according to Newsday. California State Senator Scott Wiener was more direct: "If the Trump Administration tries to enforce this ridiculous order, we will see them in court," he said, per PBS NewsHour.
Legal Showdown Expected Before End of 2026
The fight is heading to court. The Justice Department's AI Litigation Task Force is expected to file its first injunctions against state laws before the end of 2026, The White House has signaled. The core legal question: do state AI rules "impermissibly regulate beyond state borders" and therefore violate the Constitution's interstate commerce rules?
The stakes are real for ordinary people. If state laws are struck down, residents in California and Colorado could lose protections against biased algorithms that affect hiring and credit scores, according to Ropes & Gray. Meanwhile, policy analysts at Just Security warn that the federal approach is not true deregulation — it hands "broad discretion" to the executive branch through private deals with big tech, bypassing both Congress and the states entirely.
Sentiment
NeutralPublishers
11
Articles
11
Reach
11
