Trump’s AI Preemption Order Splits GOP as States Fight for AI Laws

President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order that seeks to preempt state AI regulations by directing federal agencies to pursue lawsuits against states with AI-related laws and by probing the use of federal broadband funds as leverage. The measure, announced in the Oval Office, directs the Justice Department to establish an 'AI Litigation Task Force' to challenge state rules on safety, deepfakes and other AI uses, and asks the Commerce Department to examine whether it can withhold federal broadband funding from noncompliant states. Notably, the order excludes child-safety protections from its scope. Trump wrote on Truth Social that with 50 states involved in “RULES and the APPROVAL PROCESS,” there can be no doubt about this, and warned that AI “will be DESTROYED IN ITS INFANCY” if not curbed.

Trump was joined at the signing by David Sacks, a tech and crypto adviser who has pressed for federal preemption on AI policy, underscoring the administration’s effort to align federal action with industry pushback against a patchwork of state laws. The White House framed the order as a means to prevent a confusing, multi-jurisdictional regime that could hinder innovation and consumer protections across the country.

Reaction was swift and divided among conservatives and Republicans. Some backers of AI policy welcomed federal preemption as a way to standardize standards and reduce compliance headaches, while others warned it would trample states’ rights and expose red states to a potential confrontation with the administration. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Utah Governor Spencer Cox and other GOP lawmakers signaled they intend to uphold state AI laws, signaling potential conflicts that could extend into the 2026 elections. Wesley Hodges, acting director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Technology and the Human Person, said the move could create “terrible optics” for red states heading into the midterms and widen a schism between populists and tech advocates within the party. He added that the proposed preemption is “ahistorical” and lacks a precedent for sweeping bans on state laws without a replacement standard.

Polling this year showed that most Americans want guardrails around AI, but Congress has moved slowly, leaving dozens of states to move ahead with more than 100 AI-related laws touching on safety, deepfakes, mental health and more. AI supporters say the flood of state rules creates compliance headaches and hampers innovation, while opponents say federal preemption could stifle local experimentation. Earlier this year, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin cautioned that policymakers must balance protecting innovation with safeguarding the public, emphasizing that it is possible to protect the public without “killing the goose that laid the golden egg.”

Constitutional questions loom over the president’s approach. Critics argue that the preemption is unprecedented in scope and could undermine the Tenth Amendment protections that many red states emphasize. DeSantis publicly questioned the order’s reach on X, suggesting that states retain the power to set their own policies. In Texas and other red states, lawmakers are weighing next steps as they consider maintaining or accelerating their AI policy agendas despite the looming threat of federal enforcement.

Utah has moved to require companies to disclose AI use in certain sectors, including finance and mental health, while Texas has advanced bills addressing AI-generated child pornography and other issues. Republican State Representative Doug Fiefia labeled the executive order an overreach that disregards the Tenth Amendment, and Texas Senator Angela Paxton has been among the most vocal advocates for continuing state-level AI legislation. Paxton acknowledged that the order excludes child-safety laws, which she views as a positive, while warning that the administration could selectively pursue cases against state statutes it dislikes. David Sacks has signaled that enforcement will be selective and aimed at stamping out what officials call ideological meddling in AI systems from progressives.

The developing policy fight is reshaping the Republican landscape ahead of next year’s elections. MAGA-focused voices, including Steve Bannon, have characterized the order as an attempt to sway voters away from Trump by shifting technology policy away from populist priorities. Analysts at American Compass warn that the administration’s stance could carry political risk if it appears to privilege tech interests over social conservatives and working-class voters. Small-business owner Matt Pankus, who voted for Trump in the last three elections, said that federal preemption runs counter to the country’s tradition of state experimentation, arguing that the states should be allowed to test policies and learn what works. “This country was set up so that states could do different things to see what works and what doesn't,” he said, adding that federal overreach is not acceptable.

Looking ahead, the policy push sets up a potential battle over standing and constitutionality in courts, as states consider challenging DOJ actions or defending their own AI laws. The administration’s approach also raises questions about how Congress might respond if the executive branch intensifies efforts to preempt state regulation without enacting comprehensive federal AI standards. In the near term, blue states are expected to continue pursuing their AI laws, while red states weigh whether to press forward and risk federal lawsuits that could become high-profile court fights in the years ahead. The outcome of this confrontation could shape how AI governance unfolds in the United States and influence political calculations as midterms approach.