On December 11, 2025, the White House released a presidential Executive Order (EO) aimed at establishing a uniform national framework for AI intelligence governance — a major development in AI policy and federal–state relations here in Washington DC.
What's New?
- The signed EO establishes a federal AI Litigation Task Force within 30 days to challenge state AI laws that conflict with federal AI policy on constitutional grounds.
- It sets forth a process for evaluating state AI laws and identifying those considered “onerous” or inconsistent with national policy, rather than broadly threatening all state regulations. State laws regulating AI in California and Colorado, and recent New York legislation signed into law by Governor Kathy Hochul on the same date of the EO, may come under immediate scrutiny. A new NY law S.8420-A/A.8887-B requires persons who produce or create an advertisement to identify if it includes AI generated synthetic performers. Another new NY law S.8391/A.8882 requires consent from heirs or executors if a person wishes to use the name, image, or likeness of an individual for commercial purposes after their death.
- It adds specific procedural steps, including a Commerce Department/ FTC/FCC evaluation and potential curtailment of non-deployment funding under NTIA’s $42.5 billion BEAD program for states.
- It directs agencies to pursue federal reporting/disclosure standards to preempt conflicting laws — a move towards harmonized, federal baseline requirements. The Secretary of Commerce is directed to review state AI statutes that conflict with Administration goals, including “laws that require AI models to alter their truthful outputs, or that may compel AI developers or deployers to disclose or report information that would violate the First Amendment or any other provision of the Constitution.”
In essence: while the draft EO focused heavily on preemption and enforcement (including litigation and potential funding sanctions), the final EO now incorporates a more structured national policy framework with:
- defined evaluation processes and
- inter-agency coordination mechanisms.
Certain “State AI laws” will not be touched by the new procedures in the EO, namely:
“(i) child safety protections;
(ii) AI compute and data center infrastructure, other than generally applicable permitting reforms;
(iii) State government procurement and use of AI; and
(iv) other topics as shall be determined.”
Public interest and industry groups have already staked predictable positions. The Consumer Technology Association, which represents big technology companies, welcomed the EO as promoting “U.S. leadership in artificial intelligence.” The ACLU and Center for Democracy & Technology have decried the EO as unconstitutional, including the new threat to retroactively change conditions on federal BEAD grants to states. California Governor Gavin Newsom issued a strongly worded statement calling the EO as “running a con” arguing that California is “building the strongest innovation economy in the nation while implementing commonsense safeguards and leading the way forward.”
Our PLG Opinion:
This is a significant pivot in U.S. AI governance — moving from an emerging patchwork of U.S. state AI legislation to a single, federal approach to "unleash innovation" and reduce compliance fragmentation in the U.S. - very different from the EI AI Act. The EO is not an AI Regulation Moratorium (cf. the mentioned exemptions that were not in the leaked draft EO), but it certainly moves heavily in this direction. The EO also raises important and fundamental questions as to whether federal preemption of state laws by federal executive order is legally effective without federal legislation enacted by Congress. This will create legal uncertainty by further litigation with the relevant States about whether the EO is constitutional or an infringement of state legislative prerogatives in the absence of federal legislation.
