According to reports published on November 19, the White House has prepared a draft Executive Order to preempt state AI regulations in lieu of a uniform national legislative framework, marking a significant escalation in federal efforts to assert control over AI regulation. The draft Executive Order, titled “Eliminating State Law Obstruction of National AI Policy” (and marked “Deliberative/Predecisional/Draft”) (“draft EO”), outlines a sweeping, multi-pronged effort to “sustain and enhance America’s global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome, uniform national policy framework for AI.”
The draft EO directs White House officials and federal agencies to take various steps to preempt or challenge certain state AI regulations deemed unconstitutional or inconsistent with federal law, or to withhold federal funding from states with AI laws deemed inconsistent with the policies described in the draft EO, including:
- Establishing an AI Litigation Task Force. The draft EO directs the Attorney General to establish an “AI Litigation Task Force” with the “sole responsibility” of challenging state AI laws that, “in the Attorney General’s judgment,” unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce, conflict with existing federal regulations, or otherwise violate federal law.
- Evaluating “Onerous State AI Laws.” The draft EO directs the Commerce Secretary, in consultation with White House officials, to publish an evaluation of state AI laws that conflict with the draft EO or that should be referred to the AI Litigation Task Force. Echoing President Trump’s July 23 Executive Order on “Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government,” the draft EO requires this evaluation to identify state AI laws that “require AI models to alter truthful outputs” or require disclosures from AI developers or deployers that would violate First Amendment or other constitutional rights.
- Funding Restrictions for States with AI Laws. Mirroring provisions in the proposed state and local AI moratorium that was overwhelmingly rejected by the Senate in July, the draft EO directs the Commerce Secretary to withhold certain Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (“BEAD”) funds from states with “onerous” AI laws identified by the Secretary above. The draft EO also directs federal agencies to assess whether to require states to refrain from enacting or enforcing certain AI laws as a condition for receiving certain discretionary grants.
- Agency Preemption of State AI Laws. Consistent with recommendations in President Trump’s July 23 AI Action Plan, the draft EO directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to consider adopting a “Federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that preempts conflicting State [AI] laws.” The draft EO instructs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in consultation with the White House Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, to “issue a policy statement on the application of the FTC Act’s prohibition on unfair and deceptive acts or practices under 15 U.S.C. 45 [Section 5 of the FTC Act] to AI models.” The draft also directs the FTC to specifically “explain the circumstances under which State laws that require alterations to the truthful outputs of AI models” are preempted by Section 5’s prohibition on deceptive acts or practices.
- Legislative Recommendations for Federal AI Framework. The draft EO directs the White House Special Advisor for AI and Crypto and the Office of Legislative Affairs to “jointly prepare . . . a legislative recommendation establishing a uniform Federal regulatory framework for AI that preempts state AI laws that conflict with the policy set forth” in the draft EO.
Although the operative provisions of the draft EO do not expressly target any particular state AI laws, the statement of purpose specifically references the Colorado AI Act, which establishes reporting, impact assessment, and transparency requirements for developers and deployers of certain “high-risk AI systems,” as well as California’s recently enacted Transparency in Frontier AI Models Act, which imposes transparency, reporting, and whistleblower requirements for developers of “frontier models” deemed to pose “catastrophic risks” to public safety. While these laws are noted as motivating factors for the draft EO, agency actions taken pursuant to the draft EO would presumably apply to state laws deemed to conflict with the policies adopted in the draft.
The draft EO follows a series of recent efforts to curb state AI laws and, if ultimately finalized, could reshape the balance of federal and state authority over AI regulation. On July 1, the Senate, by a 99–1 vote, rejected a proposed amendment to the budget reconciliation bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, that would have imposed a moratorium on state and local AI enforcement. Later in July, the White House released its AI Action Plan, which called on federal agencies to limit funding to states with “burdensome” AI laws and urged the FCC to evaluate potential preemption under the Communications Act. And in recent weeks, and with support from the President, House Republicans have renewed efforts for federal legislation to preempt state AI laws, pushing to include an AI preemption provision in the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
While it remains uncertain whether President Trump will ultimately issue the draft EO as prepared or whether the latest legislative efforts to preempt state AI legislation will succeed, the debate over the proper scope of AI regulation—and the role of federal and state governments in adopting and enforcing those regulations—will persist.
* * *
For more updates on developments related to artificial intelligence and technology, see our Inside Global Tech, Global Policy Watch, and Inside Privacy blogs.