According to Engadget, on Thursday evening, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for a single nationwide regulatory framework for artificial intelligence. The order’s centerpiece is an “AI Litigation Task Force” with the sole job of challenging state AI laws that conflict with the administration’s policy. US Attorney General Pam Bondi has 30 days to create this task force, which will meet regularly with White House AI and crypto czar David Sacks. The administration will also limit states with “onerous” AI laws from accessing federal funding, specifically targeting the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program. Advocacy groups like the Center for Democracy and Technology have already criticized the order, calling it a move to chill state-level oversight.
The federal preemption play
Here’s the thing: this is a classic federal preemption strategy, but applied to the wild west of AI policy. The administration’s argument, that “excessive State regulation thwarts” innovation, is a business-friendly stance aiming to create one set of rules for companies to follow. It’s a huge deal for any tech firm trying to scale an AI product nationally. Imagine trying to comply with 50 different sets of regulations? It’s a compliance nightmare. So from a pure business strategy perspective, a single framework theoretically lowers barriers to entry and scaling. But it also completely sidelines states that believe they need stricter rules to protect their own residents from potential harms—things like algorithmic bias in hiring or law enforcement.
The funding lever
And then there’s the funding threat. That’s the real muscle in this order. Threatening to withhold money from the $42.5 billion BEAD program is a serious stick. Basically, the message is: “Fall in line with our light-touch AI vision, or your rural communities might not get the broadband they were promised.” Critics argue this punishes everyday Americans for the policy choices of their state legislatures. It ties two completely different issues—internet infrastructure and AI ethics—together in a pretty aggressive political knot. Will it work? It certainly gets attention. But it also guarantees fierce legal and political battles.
A repeat of history?
Look, this isn’t Trump‘s first rodeo trying to rein in states on AI. Remember the attempt to impose a 10-year moratorium on state-level regulation as part of the “One Big Beautiful Bill”? The Senate voted 99-1 to strip that out. That’s about as bipartisan as it gets these days. So there’s a clear precedent of Congress pushing back against this kind of sweeping federal override. It begs the question: is this new litigation task force strategy just a different path to the same, potentially unpopular, goal? Creating a task force to sue states sounds decisive, but it’s likely to get bogged down in courts for years. In the meantime, the regulatory landscape stays messy, which might be the worst outcome for everyone.
The bigger picture
So what’s the real endgame? It seems like the administration is trying to cement a deregulatory, innovation-first approach to AI as the permanent national standard before more states—especially those with different political leanings—can enact their own rules. The beneficiaries are clear: large AI companies and startups that want minimal friction. But by moving so aggressively against states, they’re inviting a huge backlash. Advocacy groups are already framing it as an attack on local democracy and consumer protection. This feels less like a settled policy and more like the opening salvo in a long war over who gets to control the rules for the most transformative technology of our time. Buckle up.
