President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday to curtail state artificial intelligence (AI) regulations in a major victory for Big Tech that drew waves of criticism.
The order, which creates an AI Litigation Task Force under Attorney General Pam Bondi to challenge state AI laws that conflict with the administration’s goal of minimal regulation, comes after two failed Congressional attempts this year to establish federal AI standards that would supersede state rules.
“If they had to get 50 different approvals from 50 different states, you could forget it,” Trump said at the Oval Office, underlining concerns from AI companies about navigating a patchwork of state requirements.
The executive order allows Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to identify state laws requiring AI models to modify their outputs, echoing the administration’s opposition to what it labels “woke AI.” States with such regulations may need to agree not to enforce them to receive certain federal funding.
White House AI czar David Sacks and Science and Technology Policy Director Michael Kratsios have been directed to develop recommendations for federal legislation that would preempt state AI laws, though protections for child safety and data center infrastructure would remain untouched.
The order arrives amid mounting concerns about AI’s impact on American life — ranging from data center pollution and rising electricity costs to chatbots potentially worsening teen mental health.
Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives called the order a “major win” for OpenAI, Google, Microsoft Corp., Anthropic, Meta Platforms Inc., and other AI powers grappling with more than 1,000 AI bills at the state level that, they say, threaten innovation and deployment of AI across all businesses.
However, critics quickly denounced the executive order as a lavish, dangerous gift to Big Tech.
“President Trump’s unlawful executive order is nothing more than a brazen effort to upend AI safety and give tech billionaires unchecked power over working people’s jobs, rights and freedoms,” AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler said.
Added AFT President Randi Weingarten, “This outrageous and likely illegal directive to sue states that exercise their right to regulate AI shows, in bold-faced type, the administration’s loyalty to Big Tech over kids, families, educators, nurses and other workers.”
Mackenzie Arnold of the Institute for Law and AI challenged the administration’s constitutional reasoning, noting that if interstate commerce arguments prevented state AI regulation, they would similarly prohibit all state product safety laws — traditionally accepted state powers.
Cliff Jurkiewicz, vice president of global strategy at Phenom, said the order is not legally binding because Congress didn’t vote on it, so it will be challenged in court and likely be overturned. “Executive orders do not supersede state authority,” he said.
Even some conservative voices expressed skepticism. Podcast host Steve Bannon questioned the lack of oversight for AI companies, saying there are more regulations for opening a nail salon than for frontier AI labs.
Conversely, supporters framed the order as essential for maintaining America’s competitive edge against China.
“Allowing core technical rules to be fragmented across 50 states would be an act of self-sabotage, as it would slow deployment, stifle investment, and the U.S. competitive advantage to foreign jurisdictions,” said Kristian Stout, director of innovation policy at International Center for Law & Economics.
“The United States cannot win the global race to lead in AI without a coherent, innovation-friendly national regulatory framework. As long as Congress fails to act, the growing patchwork of state AI laws will continue to fragment the U.S. market and weaken America’s competitive position,” said Daniel Castro, director of Center for Data Innovation.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, argued that whoever wins the AI race will shape the technology’s values globally, contrasting American principles of free speech and individual liberty with China’s surveillance state approach.
The order represents the administration’s attempt to bypass congressional gridlock, though legal experts question whether federal executive power can effectively override state regulatory authority.
