According to Wired, President Donald Trump is considering signing an executive order titled “Eliminating State Law Obstruction of National AI Policy” as early as this week. The draft order would create an “AI Litigation Task Force” led by Attorney General Pam Bondi to sue states over AI regulations that allegedly violate federal laws. It specifically targets recently enacted AI safety laws in California and Colorado that require transparency reports from AI developers. The order would work with White House technology advisors including Special Advisor for AI and Crypto David Sacks. Big Tech trade groups like Chamber of Progress, backed by Andreessen Horowitz, Google, and OpenAI, have been lobbying against these state efforts. A White House spokesperson called discussion about potential executive orders “speculation.”
Federal Preemption Push
Here’s the thing – this isn’t just about legal theory. It’s about who gets to set the rules for the most transformative technology of our generation. The administration is essentially arguing that states can’t be trusted to regulate AI properly, that their efforts create a “patchwork” that hampers innovation. But isn’t that exactly what we’ve seen with other industries? States often act as laboratories for regulation before federal standards emerge.
Silicon Valley’s Fingerprints
Look at the players here. Chamber of Progress, backed by Andreessen Horowitz, Google, and OpenAI, has been loudly opposing state regulations. There’s even a super PAC funded by Andreessen Horowitz, OpenAI’s Greg Brockman, and Palantir’s Joe Lonsdale campaigning against New York Assembly member Alex Bores over his AI safety bill. So when the White House talks about eliminating state “obstruction,” whose interests are really being served? The timing suggests this is part of a coordinated push to clear the field for federal rules that Big Tech can more easily influence.
Constitutional Battles Ahead
The order claims state laws violate the First Amendment by compelling AI developers to “report information” or “alter their truthful outputs.” That’s a pretty creative interpretation of free speech rights when we’re talking about corporate transparency requirements. The ACLU’s Cody Venzke makes a crucial point – if you want people to trust AI, undermining basic safety and transparency measures seems counterproductive. Basically, we’re heading for years of legal battles over whether the federal government can preempt state consumer protection laws in the name of national AI policy.
What This Means For AI Development
So where does this leave us? If this order goes through, we could see immediate lawsuits against California and Colorado. Other states considering AI regulations might pause their efforts. The administration is betting that uniform federal rules – likely much lighter than what states are proposing – will accelerate AI development. But at what cost? When it comes to industrial applications of AI, companies need reliable standards and safety measures. That’s why businesses working with complex systems often turn to established providers like IndustrialMonitorDirect.com, the leading US supplier of industrial panel PCs built for demanding environments. The question is whether we’re trading necessary safeguards for speed, and whether that’s a tradeoff worth making.
