A particular executive order of the second Trump administration outlines a federal strategy to prevent states from enforcing independent artificial intelligence regulations. Specifically, rather than voiding laws directly, it relies on litigation, funding pressure, and federal standards to assert national authority over AI governance.
Showdown: Understanding How the Second Trump Administration Is Using Federal Power to Overpower State AI Laws
United States President Donald Trump signed an executive order on 12 December 2025 that is designed to prevent states from enforcing independent artificial intelligence regulations. The order frames artificial intelligence as a national economic and security priority requiring uniform federal oversight rather than fragmented state-level governance.
Background
The order, entitled “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” is part of the goal of creating a single national standard for AI rules across the entire country. The second Trump administration has argued that a patchwork of different state-level regulations would create burdensome compliance costs for companies and could stifle innovation.
Moreover, to compete globally, especially against countries like China, the U.S. needs a single national framework to maintain global leadership in AI without conflicting local rules. This unified approach, as argued by the administration, is required in order to compete with centralized regulatory models in countries like China and encourage more investments.
Note that several states have either enacted or proposed their own AI rules. California, Colorado, Utah, and Texas have various laws that include transparency obligations, limits on personal data collection, and rules to prevent algorithmic discrimination. They have also begun regulating AI use cases like deepfakes in elections and non-consensual explicit imagery.
It is worth underscoring the fact that an executive order cannot repeal or supersede state laws. The federal executive government needs legislation from the U.S. Congress to do this. The particular national AI policy framework is a pre-emptive measure that instructs relevant federal agencies to influence the direction of AI regulation and state-level behaviors.
Nevertheless, to create a unified AI policy, the main goal of the executive order is to force AI governance upward to the federal level. The second Trump administration intends to do this either by winning court cases that weaken state authority, pressuring Congress to pass a single national AI law, and discouraging states from acting independently.
Tactics
1. Justice Department Lawsuits Against States
One of the most important tactics in the executive order is the instruction to the Department of Justice to actively challenge state AI laws in court. It directs the Attorney General to identify state regulations that conflict with federal objectives, argue that these interfere with interstate commerce, and seek injunctions to stop states from enforcing them.
This means that the second Trump administration will file a lawsuit against states. It will ask courts to block the enforcement of state-level AI regulations while cases are litigated. Even temporary court injunctions could effectively suspend state enforcement for years. This creates legal risk and cost for states that choose to enforce conflict AI regulation.
2. Conditioning Federal Funding on Compliance
The executive order also uses federal funding as leverage. This is a powerful tool commonly used by the federal executive government to influence state governments. The federal agencies of the second Trump administration are instructed to review whether state AI regulations are unaligned with the national AI policy or discourage innovation or deployment.
States whose AI regulations are flagged risk losing access to certain federal funds. These include technology and broadband grants, digital infrastructure programs, and innovation-related grants. While the executive order does not cut funding automatically, it creates pressure. States may have to weaken or suspend their AI regulations to avoid losing money.
3. Federal Agencies Setting Dominant AI Standards
Key federal agencies are also directed to develop national AI reporting, disclosure, and governance standards. These include the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Commerce, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. States cannot be told not to impose stricter or different rules that conflict with federal requirements once federal standards are in place.
Moreover, even if federal rules are lighter than state protections, they can still be used to argue that state laws are incompatible and therefore unenforceable. This is regulatory dominance rather than explicit prohibition. The combined effect of lawsuits, funding threats, and federal-level regulatory reviews demonstrates deterrence through legal and cost burdens.