EO-14365
Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence
- Signed
- Dec 11, 2025
- Published
- Dec 16, 2025
Federal Register: 2025-23092
Source: Federal Register.
Federal Framework to Limit State Regulation of Artificial Intelligence
Impact7/10
What it does
This order directs federal agencies to identify and legally challenge state AI laws that the administration considers burdensome to innovation, and conditions certain federal funding — including broadband grants — on states not enforcing such laws. It also directs the FTC and FCC to initiate proceedings that could establish federal AI standards preempting conflicting state rules, and calls for a legislative recommendation to create a uniform national AI policy framework.
Who benefits
Large and small AI companies, including startups, that would face a single national compliance standard rather than up to 50 different state regimes. Venture capital investors in AI. Technology sector workers whose employers benefit from reduced regulatory costs. Consumers and businesses that use AI-powered products and services. States that have not enacted AI-specific legislation.
Who is affected
States that have enacted AI laws — particularly Colorado, California, and others with algorithmic accountability or anti-discrimination statutes — whose laws could be challenged or defunded. Individuals who rely on state anti-discrimination protections in AI-driven decisions (e.g., hiring, lending, housing). Civil rights organizations. State legislators and attorneys general who assert state authority to regulate technology. Broadband-dependent rural communities in states with AI laws, who could lose access to BEAD program funding. Privacy advocates who support state-level digital protections.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a fragmented patchwork of 50 state AI laws creates compliance costs that disproportionately burden startups and smaller companies, slowing U.S. innovation at a critical moment of global competition. They contend the Commerce Clause grants Congress — and by extension the executive branch directing federal agencies — authority to prevent states from imposing regulations that effectively reach beyond their borders and distort interstate commerce, and that a single national standard better protects consumers through consistent, coherent rules.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that using federal funding conditions to coerce states into suspending their own laws raises serious Spending Clause concerns under South Dakota v. Dole, and that the order's attempt to preempt state law through agency policy statements — rather than through Congress — exceeds executive authority. They contend that state AI laws addressing algorithmic discrimination and consumer protection fill a gap left by the absence of federal AI legislation, and that eliminating them without a congressional replacement leaves affected individuals without legal recourse.
Constitutional basis
Executive orders rest on constitutional authority or statutory delegation. This summary describes the legal grounding cited or implied by the order.
The order invokes the president's Article II authority to direct executive branch agencies, including the Take Care Clause (Art. II §3). It relies on statutory delegations including 47 U.S.C. §902(b) (NTIA authority under the Communications Act), 47 U.S.C. §1702(e)-(f) (BEAD Program funding conditions), and 15 U.S.C. §45 (FTC Act prohibition on unfair and deceptive practices). Preemption arguments rest on the Supremacy Clause (Art. VI) and the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine. The order can be reversed by a future president, but agency rulemakings and FCC/FTC proceedings initiated under it would require separate administrative action to undo.