President Donald Trump is preparing to move the fight over AI regulation from Congress to the White House. On Monday, he said he plans to sign an executive order this week that would limit states from creating their own rules for artificial intelligence.
The proposal centers on a simple argument from Trump and several Silicon Valley allies: AI companies should not have to navigate different approval systems in different states. But the push is facing resistance from both parties, especially from officials who say states need room to respond to AI risks before federal consumer protections catch up.
What Trump says the order would do
Trump described the planned order as a national standard for AI policy. In a social media post, he wrote, "I will be doing a ONE RULE Executive Order this week," and added, "You can’t expect a company to get 50 Approvals every time they want to do something."
He framed the issue as a matter of U.S. competitiveness. "There must be only One Rulebook if we are going to continue to lead in AI," Trump said. "We are beating ALL COUNTRIES at this point in the race, but that won’t last long if we are going to have 50 States, many of them bad actors, involved in RULES and the APPROVAL PROCESS …AI WILL BE DESTROYED IN ITS INFANCY!"
The stated goal is to prevent a state-by-state system from shaping how AI companies build, launch and govern their products. Supporters of that approach argue that a single federal rulebook would be easier for companies to follow than a patchwork of local requirements.
Why states have been writing AI rules
The push for state AI laws has grown as AI development has accelerated and general consumer protections from the federal government have remained limited. The source article points to several examples of states trying to create their own safeguards.
California has the AI safety and transparency bill SB 53. Tennessee has the ELVIS Act, which protects musicians and performers from unauthorized AI-generated deepfakes of their voices and likenesses.
Those laws reflect a broader debate over who should respond first when AI tools create new risks. State officials and lawmakers who support local authority argue that they should not have to wait for Washington before acting on safety, privacy, creative rights or consumer protection concerns.
The concerns are not abstract. The source article notes several deaths by suicide following prolonged conversations with AI chatbots, and says psychologists have recorded an uptick in cases of a condition they are calling "AI psychosis."
Silicon Valley’s argument for one national rulebook
Some prominent Silicon Valley figures have backed the case for federal preemption. OpenAI President Greg Brockman and VC-turned-White House "AI czar" David Sacks have argued that state laws could create an unworkable patchwork, stifle innovation and threaten the U.S. lead against China in AI development.
That argument has become one of the central dividing lines in the AI regulation fight. On one side are companies and allies warning that many different state laws could slow AI progress. On the other are state-level officials and regulation advocates who say there is no reason to accept the claim that state AI laws could "destroy AI progress."
The draft executive order described in the source article would do more than state a preference for national standards. It would create an "AI Litigation Task Force" to challenge state AI laws in court. It would also direct agencies to evaluate state laws considered "onerous" and push the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission toward national standards that override state rules.
The order would also give Sacks direct influence over AI policy, superseding the usual role of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, currently headed by Michael Kratsios.
The bipartisan backlash
The new executive order plan comes after Congress rejected an attempt to preempt states from regulating AI. That proposal failed to make it into a must-pass defense budget bill after lawmakers could not agree on the measure.
Earlier this year, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) introduced a proposal that would place a 10-year moratorium on AI legislation into the federal budget bill. It was rejected 99-1, a rare bipartisan signal that many lawmakers did not want tech companies operating without oversight.
Opposition has also come from Republican officials. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) posted on X: "States must retain the right to regulate and make laws on AI and anything else for the benefit of their state. Federalism must be preserved."
Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) posted late last week: "I oppose stripping Florida of our ability to legislate in the best interest of the people. A ten year AI moratorium bans state regulation of AI, which would prevent FL from enacting important protections for individuals, children and families."
DeSantis has also described data centers as drains on power and water resources, as well as potential job killers. In a November X post, he said, "The rise of AI is the most significant economic and cultural shift occurring at the moment; denying the people the ability to channel these technologies in a productive way via self-government constitutes federal government overreach and lets technology companies run wild."
Late last week, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) warned Trump against the executive order, advising him to "leave AI to the states" to preserve federalism and allow local protections.
What is at stake now
The fight is no longer only about AI policy. It is also about federalism, corporate power and how quickly government should respond to fast-moving technology.
New York Assembly member Alex Bores, who sponsored New York’s RAISE Act, criticized the draft order sharply. "Christmas comes early for AI billionaires who keep getting exactly what they want from The White House: a massive handout that makes it that much easier for them to make massive profits for themselves with exactly zero consideration for the risks to our kids, to our safety, and to our jobs," he said in a statement.
A bipartisan coalition of over 35 state attorneys general warned Congress last month that overriding state AI laws could have "disastrous consequences." More than 200 state lawmakers have also issued an open letter opposing federal preemption, citing setbacks to progress on AI safety.
Trump’s expected order would therefore enter an already charged political environment. The core question is whether AI should be governed through one national framework shaped from Washington, or whether states should keep the power to write protections as the technology develops.