How Washington Is Trying to Preempt State AI Laws, and Why States Are Fighting Back

On Dec. 11, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14365, "Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence," directing the Justice Department to build a task force with one job: suing states over their AI laws. The order calls state-by-state regulation a "patchwork of 50 different regulatory regimes that makes compliance more challenging, particularly for start-ups," language the Justice Department quoted when it stood up the task force on Jan. 9, 2026.

Coalitions of state attorneys general covering as many as 36 states have told Congress and federal regulators that a uniform federal standard would strip them of tools they already use against AI-related harms. The outcome will decide whether AI companies eventually answer to one federal rulebook or keep navigating dozens of separate state laws on disclosure, bias testing and safety.

What the Executive Order Set in Motion

Executive Order 14365 lays out several levers for reducing state AI regulation. Section 3 directs the attorney general to create an "AI Litigation Task Force" within 30 days — by Jan. 10, 2026 — whose "sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws inconsistent with the policy," on grounds that such laws "unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce, are preempted by existing Federal regulations, or are otherwise unlawful."

Section 4 gives the Commerce Department 90 days, until March 11, 2026, to publish an assessment identifying state AI laws that conflict with the order's goal of a "minimally burdensome national policy framework," including laws that force AI models to "alter their truthful outputs." The order also directs the Federal Trade Commission to issue guidance by the same March 11 deadline on when such state mandates amount to deceptive practices, and the Federal Communications Commission to open a proceeding, within 90 days of that assessment's publication, on a federal AI disclosure standard that could preempt conflicting state rules. Separately, the Commerce Secretary is directed to make states with what the order calls "onerous" AI laws ineligible for non-deployment funding under the federal broadband program, to the maximum extent federal law allows.

The Justice Department's First Court Fight

A Jan. 9, 2026 memo from the attorney general launched the task force, naming the attorney general or a designee as chair and the associate attorney general as vice chair, with members drawn from the offices of the deputy and associate attorneys general, the solicitor general and the Civil Division. The memo says the task force will consult "from time to time" with the White House's special advisor for AI and crypto and other senior officials on which state laws to challenge.

The task force's first courtroom appearance came in Colorado. xAI sued the state on April 9, 2026, challenging Senate Bill 24-205, Colorado's law restricting "algorithmic discrimination" in AI systems used for decisions such as mortgage lending, student admissions and job selection. On April 24, 2026, the Justice Department moved to intervene, arguing the law violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate said laws "like Colorado's that force AI models to produce false results or promote ideological bias threaten national and economic security," while the department's Civil Rights Division separately argued the law improperly requires companies to guard against unintentional disparate impact. As of September 2026, this remains the task force's only litigation action, according to a regulatory tracking summary.

Why State Attorneys General Are Pushing Back

The pushback predates the executive order. On Nov. 26, 2025, the National Association of Attorneys General sent Congress a letter signed by 36 states and territories opposing a federal moratorium on state AI laws, arguing broad preemption would undermine states' ability to respond quickly to emerging risks. The letter pointed to state laws already covering AI-generated explicit content, deepfakes, voter deception, algorithmic rent-setting, robocalls and AI disclosure requirements.

A second, narrower coalition of 23 attorneys general, including the District of Columbia's, wrote to the FCC on Dec. 19, 2025, urging it not to issue a ruling preempting state and local AI laws. The letter called AI "a broad and undefined term" spanning far more than telecommunications, and argued state AI laws are not "remotely related to limiting the entry or operation of telecommunications networks." It asked the agency to "stand down and allow Congress to first decide" what preemption, if any, is appropriate. Signatories on both letters spanned Republican- and Democratic-led states.

A Legislative Framework Aimed at Congress

On March 20, 2026, the White House released "A National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence," a set of legislative recommendations urging Congress to adopt a "minimally burdensome national standard" and preempt state AI laws that impose "undue burdens." The framework carves out exceptions preserving states' authority to enforce generally applicable child protection laws and "state police powers, zoning authority and rules governing states' own use of AI."

Congressional reaction split along familiar lines. The same day the framework was released, Rep. Don Beyer introduced the GUARDRAILS Act to repeal Executive Order 14365 and block federal preemption, with a Senate companion expected from Sen. Brian Schatz; two days earlier, Sen. Marsha Blackburn had released an updated draft of her own bill, the TRUMP AMERICA AI Act, aligned with the administration's framework. The divide is not solely partisan: a separate attempt to attach a 10-year moratorium on state AI enforcement to a budget reconciliation bill failed in the Senate by a vote of 99 to 1.

Where the Compliance Picture Stands Now

No comprehensive federal AI statute exists, and no federal preemption of state AI law has been enacted, according to a September 2026 regulatory tracking summary. The FTC's proposed policy statement on when state-mandated changes to AI outputs count as deceptive practices remains unfinished; its public comment period closed July 31, 2026, with no final version issued as of mid-September.

For AI companies, that leaves the compliance map largely unchanged. The "patchwork" of state laws the executive order set out to dismantle is still the operative rulebook while the Colorado case, the FTC statement, the FCC proceeding and any legislation move forward on separate, uncertain timelines.

Related coverage: How Washington Wants to Control Not Just the Chip, but Who Logs Into It; How a Federal Rule Is Made, and Where It Can Be Stopped; What Antitrust Law Actually Prohibits.