US President Donald Trump is considering an executive order that would challenge state artificial intelligence rules through the courts and through limits on federal funding, according to a draft viewed by WIRED. The draft, currently titled “Eliminating State Law Obstruction of National AI Policy,” frames state AI regulation as a barrier to a national approach.
What the draft order would do
The draft directs US attorney general Pam Bondi to create an “AI Litigation Task Force.” Its stated purpose would be to sue states over AI regulations that allegedly conflict with federal laws involving areas such as free speech and interstate commerce.
Trump could sign the order as early as this week, according to four sources familiar with the matter. A White House spokesperson told WIRED that “discussion about potential executive orders is speculation.”
The proposed task force would work with White House technology advisers, including special adviser for AI and crypto David Sacks. Together, they would identify state measures that the order says may violate federal law.
The draft points to rules that “require AI models to alter their truthful outputs” or force AI developers to “report information in a manner that would violate the First Amendment or any other provision of the Constitution.” That language places the proposed order at the center of a broader fight over whether AI safety and transparency requirements are consumer protections, constitutional problems, or obstacles to innovation.
Why California and Colorado are in focus
The draft specifically cites recently enacted AI safety laws in California and Colorado. Those laws require AI developers to publish transparency reports about how they train models, among other provisions.
That reporting requirement is one of the clearest examples in the draft of what the Trump administration may seek to oppose. The order treats some state-level transparency rules as potentially incompatible with constitutional protections and national AI policy.
Big Tech trade groups have already been arguing against this state-by-state approach. Chamber of Progress, which is backed by Andreessen Horowitz, Google, and OpenAI, has described the growing set of state AI rules as a “patchwork” that hampers innovation. Those groups are instead lobbying for a light-touch set of federal laws to guide AI progress.
The draft order echoes that concern in its own language. “To win, American AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation. But State legislatures have introduced over 1,000 AI bills that threaten to undermine that innovative culture,” the draft order reads. “My Administration will act to ensure that there is a minimally burdensome national standard – not 50 discordant State ones.”
The funding lever
The proposal is not limited to lawsuits. It also instructs the Department of Commerce to write guidelines that could make states ineligible for funding intended to expand access to high-speed internet.
The relevant funding source is the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program, which is run out of the Commerce Department and is valued at more than $42 billion. Under the draft order, access to that kind of funding could become part of the federal pressure campaign against certain state AI laws.
Cody Venzke, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, criticized that approach. “Both the law and the Constitution prevent the President from unilaterally attaching strings to federal funds, especially when the stakes are this high,” says Venzke.
The draft also calls on White House senior AI advisers to draft legislation establishing a federal regulatory framework to govern AI. That means the order would not simply attack state laws one case at a time. It would also point toward a national system designed to replace or override the current state-driven approach.
The wider political fight over AI rules
The draft order arrives as Silicon Valley has been increasing pressure on supporters of state AI regulation. One example cited by WIRED is a super PAC funded by Andreessen Horowitz, OpenAI cofounder Greg Brockman, and Palantir cofounder Joe Lonsdale. That group recently announced a campaign against New York Assembly member Alex Bores, the author of a state AI safety bill.
House Republicans have also renewed an effort to pass a blanket moratorium on states introducing AI regulations after an earlier version of the measure failed. The draft executive order would move in the same general direction by using executive authority, litigation and federal funding guidance to weaken state-level AI rules.
The draft order also invokes the Commerce Clause, the part of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states. Andreessen Horowitz’s head of AI policy and chief legal and policy officer published a letter in September arguing that several state AI laws raise concerns under the Commerce Clause.
On Tuesday, President Donald Trump posted a statement on Truth Social criticizing “overregulation” of AI and accusing some states of embedding “DEI ideology into AI models, producing ‘Woke AI.’” The draft order appears to address those claims by calling on the Federal Trade Commission to declare that states cannot pass laws that manipulate AI outputs.
What is at stake
The core issue is who gets to set the rules for artificial intelligence in the United States. States such as California and Colorado have moved ahead with AI safety and transparency requirements. The draft order would challenge that path and push toward a single national standard.
Supporters of lighter federal rules argue that too many state laws can slow AI development and create conflicting obligations for companies. Critics of the draft argue that trust in AI depends on safety and transparency, not only speed.
“If the president wants to win the AI race, the American people need to know that AI is safe and trustworthy," says Cody Venzke, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union. “This draft only undermines that trust.”
If signed, the executive order would open a new phase in the fight over AI regulation: not just lobbying over future rules, but direct federal challenges to state laws already on the books.