Public attitudes toward artificial intelligence have grown markedly darker over the past few years, even as AI tools seep into almost every corner of daily life. In a series of recent Pew surveys, about half of American adults now say they are more concerned than excited about AI’s spread, up sharply from roughly two-fifths in 2022. The growing concern reflects fears about job loss, misinformation, and the sense that AI is being imposed on people rather than chosen. Many people still see real benefits in automation and productivity gains, but they also worry that AI could erode human relationships, skills, and control over basic services and information.
Perhaps, in part due to public concern, states have begun passing laws to regulate generative AI. Yet, federal legislation remains limited. President Trump is attempting to assert control by signing an executive order that essentially aims to kneecap tough state AI laws, reroute federal money, and pull power over this fast-moving technology firmly back to Washington.
The Battle Over AI Regulation
All the unease over AI has unfolded alongside increasingly intense fights over how, and by whom, it should be regulated.
In California, for example, lawmakers advanced S.B. 1047, a.k.a. "Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act.” If passed, it would impose some of the country’s toughest rules on frontier AI developers by requiring testing for “catastrophic” risks and exposing companies to liability if they fail to mitigate harms. Supporters cast the bill as a necessary safety backstop.
Critics in the tech industry warn it could stifle innovation and effectively let one state dictate rules for the entire national AI sector. Silicon Valley firms and their allies have grown increasingly vocal about what they see as a crippling patchwork of state rules. They argue that compliance costs and inconsistent standards could slow deployment of new AI systems and weaken the United States in its race with China.
At the federal level, Congress has struggled to settle on a coherent approach, and partisan divides do not map neatly onto pro‑ or anti‑regulation camps. State legislators in both red and blue states have been advancing rules on issues such as deepfakes, hiring discrimination, and transparency.
A dramatic illustration came this past July, when the Senate voted 99–1 to strip from a major tax and immigration package a provision that would have imposed a multiyear moratorium on state AI laws, after even some Republicans balked at rolling back dozens of state safeguards in one stroke.
The Trump Card
By late 2025, that uneasy stalemate between state experimentation and federal gridlock collided with the Trump administration’s very different vision for AI governance.
On December 11, Trump moved to break that impasse with an executive order titled “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence.” The order declares that America should have a “minimally burdensome” national AI standard rather than 50 discordant state regimes and directs his administration to treat aggressive state rules as a threat to innovation, economic growth, and even national security.
The order instructs the attorney general to stand up an “AI Litigation Task Force” dedicated to challenging state AI laws in court (and even gives it specific grounds on which to challenge these laws, such as interference with interstate commerce or conflict with federal policy). The order mandates that the Justice Department become an active combatant against state-level AI rules.
Stringing in BEAD Money
The order also directs the Commerce Department to draw up a list of “onerous” state AI laws. Why? It has to do with what’s called the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program.
The BEAD program is a large federal grant initiative to expand high‑speed internet across the United States. Funded at 42.5 billion dollars under the 2021 infrastructure law, it gives money to states and territories to build or upgrade broadband networks, especially in unserved and underserved (mostly rural) areas.
States can use BEAD funds for things like planning and laying new fiber or other broadband infrastructure, improving service to community institutions such as schools and libraries, and helping more people adopt and use internet service. The overarching goal is reliable and affordable universal broadband access so that homes, businesses, and community facilities everywhere can get online and benefit from digital services.
The BEAD program is significant because the executive order leverages it to enforce AI policy. The order directs the Commerce Department to make states with stricter AI laws ineligible for certain BEAD funds. That means broadband money could be partially withheld unless they scale back AI regulations the administration disfavors.
Carve-outs, Courts, and a Clash to Come?
Trump framed the move as necessary to cement U.S. “AI dominance” and to free companies from cumbersome state regulation. In the Oval Office signing ceremony, White House aides said the administration does not plan to challenge state AI laws focused on protecting children, such as rules on child sexual abuse material or kids’ online safety. The order also instructs drafters of future federal AI legislation not to propose preempting “otherwise lawful State AI laws relating to child safety protections,” effectively carving out that category from its broader push to curb state authority.
Legal experts warn that key planks (especially tying broadband grants to AI policy and using the “dormant commerce clause” to knock down state laws) may face an uphill battle in court. Governors of both parties who support tougher AI guardrails have signaled resistance to Washington preempting their rules. For now, Trump’s directive marks a sharp escalation in the AI debate.
Related Resources:
- Haven't Started Using AI Yet? You Aren't as Behind as You Might Think. (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
- Why Judges Are Getting Creative with AI-Abusing Attorneys (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
- Lindell Case Indicates Artificial Intelligence and the Legal System Are Still a Work in Progress (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
