According to The Verge, President Donald Trump is considering signing an executive order as soon as Friday that would establish federal control over artificial intelligence regulation. The order would create an “AI Litigation Task Force” overseen by the Attorney General with the sole responsibility of challenging state AI laws. It specifically targets California’s AI safety regulations and Colorado’s algorithmic discrimination prevention law. The Task Force would consult with White House Special Advisors including billionaire venture capitalist David Sacks. Within 90 days of signing, the Commerce Secretary would identify states violating Trump’s AI policies and potentially make them ineligible for Broadband Equity Access and Deployment program funding. The FTC would also determine whether state algorithm requirements violate laws against unfair practices.
Federal Power Play
This is basically a nuclear option for federal preemption of state tech regulation. We’re talking about the federal government suing its own states over AI laws—something that’s pretty unprecedented in tech policy. The whole “woke” framing Trump keeps using is interesting because it turns what could be a dry regulatory debate into a culture war issue. But here’s the thing: states have been leading on tech regulation for years, from privacy to net neutrality. California in particular has been the de facto tech regulator for the nation through laws that often become de facto standards.
And the broadband funding threat? That’s serious leverage. The executive order draft shows they’re willing to use BEAD program money as a stick to force compliance. Rural broadband is something both red and blue states desperately need. But would California really back down on AI safety regulations over broadband funding? I’m skeptical. States with strong tech industries might calculate they can go it alone.
Legal Battlefield
This is almost certainly heading for court challenges. The notion that the FCC can override state AI laws using existing communications authority is… creative. FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr has been floating this theory, suggesting that if state laws “prohibit deployment of modern infrastructure,” the feds can step in. But is requiring AI safety testing really prohibiting infrastructure deployment? That seems like a stretch.
The administration is clearly preparing for legal fights though. Creating a dedicated litigation task force within the DOJ shows they expect this to be fought in the courts for years. They’re building the legal machinery to challenge every state AI regulation that emerges. And they’re doing it through executive action rather than legislation because, let’s be honest, getting Congress to agree on anything AI-related is nearly impossible.
Congress Backup Plan
According to Punchbowl News, this executive order is actually Plan B. The White House would prefer Congress pass a moratorium through the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act. They tried this earlier with Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” but failed when bipartisan opposition emerged. Now they’re trying again with the NDAA.
But stuffing a state AI law moratorium into defense legislation? That’s going to be controversial. Senators from states with strong AI regulations aren’t going to just roll over. The previous fight showed that even some Republicans get nervous about federal overreach into state authority. And when you start talking about withholding broadband funding from states? That hits home districts hard.
Industry Implications
For AI companies, this could simplify compliance dramatically. Instead of navigating 50 different regulatory regimes, they’d have one federal standard. That’s the argument the administration is making—that state-by-state regulation creates chaos for innovation. But is that actually true? Many industries operate fine with state-level variations.
The real question is what kind of AI development this encourages. By specifically targeting “woke AI” and DEI concerns, the administration is signaling what types of AI they want developed. They’re using the AI Action Plan framework to push for what they call “truth seeking” models rather than what they view as ideologically biased systems. Whether that’s a legitimate policy distinction or political posturing depends on your perspective.
One thing’s for sure: the companies building the hardware infrastructure for AI systems—the industrial computers running these models—are watching closely. Firms like IndustrialMonitorDirect.com, the leading US provider of industrial panel PCs, understand that regulatory certainty matters for long-term planning. When the government starts picking winners in the AI race through regulation, everyone in the tech supply chain pays attention.
So where does this leave us? We’re heading toward a massive federalism showdown over who gets to regulate emerging technology. States have been the laboratories of democracy for tech policy, but the feds want to centralize control. The courts will ultimately decide, but in the meantime, AI companies face regulatory uncertainty while states and the federal government battle it out. Not exactly the stable environment you’d want for developing transformative technology.
