According to CNBC, President Trump has signed an executive order aiming to preempt state-level artificial intelligence regulations, which the White House argues make America less competitive. The order, celebrated by Andreessen Horowitz’s Collin McCune as “an important first step,” could threaten federal funding for states with laws deemed onerous, specifically targeting recent legislation in Democratic-led states like Colorado and California. Colorado’s law, set to take effect in June, requires AI developers to protect consumers from algorithmic discrimination, while a California law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom will force major AI companies to disclose safety protocols starting in January. White House AI advisor Sriram Krishnan said the administration wants to push back on “doomer” laws in states but won’t target rules protecting children’s safety. Consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, led by Robert Weissman, immediately called the order “illegal” and “mostly bluster,” promising a court challenge.
Legal Battle Ahead
Here’s the thing: this executive order is basically the opening salvo in what’s going to be a massive legal and political war. The core claim from critics like Public Citizen is simple: a president can’t unilaterally wipe out state laws. They’re almost certainly right on the legal principle. So why do it? It looks like a political maneuver to signal to Big Tech and his base that he’s fighting “burdensome” regulation, while daring opponents to spend time and money fighting it in court. State Rep. Brianna Titone from Colorado probably summed up the immediate state reaction best: “I’m pretty much ignoring it.” That defiance is going to be the norm. You can expect a flurry of lawsuits, probably led by state attorneys general, arguing the order exceeds executive authority. The administration’s threat to withhold federal funds is a big stick, but wielding it won’t be quick or clean.
The State Vs. Federal Clash
This fight exposes a huge tension in U.S. tech policy. On one side, you have states like California and Colorado acting as laboratories, trying to address real harms—like algorithmic bias—that Congress has failed to legislate on. Krishnan’s dismissal of these as “doomer” laws is a pretty clear ideological framing. On the other side, the White House and some in tech argue a patchwork of state rules stifles innovation. Andreessen Horowitz’s McCune, while praising the order, still urged Congress to act. That’s the real tell. Even supporters know an EO is a temporary, shaky tool. Congress is the only body that can truly create a national framework, but it’s completely gridlocked. So we’re left with this messy proxy war: executive action vs. state legislatures. It’s a recipe for uncertainty, not the “long-term clarity” everyone claims to want.
Undercutting The Message
And then there’s the political hypocrisy angle, which California Senator Scott Wiener hammered on X. Trump says the goal is U.S. dominance in AI, but he just authorized advanced chip sales to China and Saudi Arabia. So which is it? It’s hard to argue you’re protecting American competitiveness while simultaneously empowering geopolitical rivals with the very hardware needed to build AI. It makes the whole “competitiveness” argument for preempting state laws feel flimsy and political. It seems less about a coherent strategy and more about rewarding allies in the tech industry, which is exactly what Weissman argued in his scathing statement calling it a “disgraceful invitation to reckless behavior.” The bottom line? This order creates a lot of noise and conflict, but very little actual, stable policy. For now, states are pushing ahead, as Newsom showed by signing SB 53. The real decisions will come from judges, not the Oval Office.
