It seems not a day goes by without some grand pronouncement on artificial intelligence, but this latest move from the Trump administration isn’t about shiny new models or corporate chest-thumping. Instead, it’s a political power play that shoves the thorny question of AI executive order legality right into the centre of a constitutional firestorm. By signing an executive order on 11 December 2025, President Trump didn’t just wade into the AI regulation debate; he cannonballed into it, threatening to upend the delicate balance between federal power and state autonomy.
The order establishes an “AI Litigation Task Force” within the Justice Department with a clear mission: challenge and dismantle state-level AI laws. This isn’t just about streamlining rules; it’s about declaring war on states that dare to regulate the technology on their own terms. The strategy is aggressive, the justification is competition with China, and the central question is simple: can he actually do that?
The Spark in the Powder Keg: AI Governance
For years, the federal government in the US has been slow to act on AI governance. This inaction created a vacuum, and as is often the case, states began to fill it. From California to Colorado, local legislatures started crafting rules to protect consumers, ensure algorithmic fairness, and put guardrails on a technology advancing at a dizzying pace.
What’s Actually in the Order?
President Trump’s executive order aims to bulldoze this patchwork of state laws. According to the NPR report, it directs federal agencies to find ways around state AI regulations they deem too “onerous”. The stick? The administration is exploring withholding federal funds for rural broadband from states that don’t play ball. It’s a classic carrot-and-stick approach, only without the carrot.
The entire manoeuvre is framed as a matter of national security. As Trump himself put it, “We have to be unified. China is unified because they have one vote, that’s President Xi. He says do it, and that’s the end of that.” This logic positions state-level consumer protection as a direct impediment to competing with an autocratic rival. However, peeling back the rhetoric reveals a fundamental clash with the American system of government.
An Unconstitutional Overreach?
At the heart of this dispute is the scope of presidential authority. An executive order is, in essence, a memo from the CEO of the country to the federal departments under his command. It can direct how federal agencies operate and enforce existing laws. What it cannot do is create new laws out of thin air or unilaterally nullify laws passed by the states.
Think of it like this: a company-wide directive from a CEO can dictate internal policy, but it can’t override local council planning permissions for a new office building. The executive order attempts to do just that, treating states not as sovereign entities but as insubordinate branch offices.
The Federalism Flashpoint
This brings us to the constitutional conflict at play. The US operates on a principle of federalism, where power is divided between the federal government and the states. Legal experts are lining up to argue that this executive order tramples all over that principle. As John Bergmayer of Public Knowledge noted, “States are, in fact,allowed to regulate interstate commerce. They do it all the time.” The idea that a presidential decree could preempt state legislative action is, to many, legally baseless.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican who is no stranger to flexing state power, put it even more bluntly: “An executive order doesn’t/can’t preempt state legislative action.” This isn’t just a legal technicality; it strikes at the core of state rights.
The Real-World Consequences
Beyond the constitutional theorising, this order has immediate and potentially damaging implications. The newly formed AI Litigation Task Force is being unleashed to actively sue states, creating a mess of legal battles that will consume time and taxpayer money.
A Chilling Effect on Safety
While proponents like tech investor David Sacks insist that “Kid safety, we’re going to protect,” and that the pushback is only against the “most onerous” regulations, the reality is far more complex. The mere threat of being dragged into a costly legal fight with the Justice Department could be enough to scare states away from enacting any meaningful consumer protections.
Adam Billen, co-founder of the AI Governance Research Institute, warned of this exact scenario. “Even if everything is overturned in the executive order, the chilling effect on states’ willingness to protect their residents is going to be huge,” he said. This “regulatory chill” could leave citizens exposed to risks from biased algorithms, data privacy violations, and unsafe AI systems while states wait to see who wins the constitutional tug-of-war.
A Party Divided
Perhaps one of the most fascinating aspects of this story is how it has fractured the Republican party. The order has pitted the nationalist, central-power wing of the party against its traditional states’ rights conservatives.
While President Trump champions federal supremacy to outpace China, prominent Republican governors and senators are crying foul.
– Utah Governor Spencer Cox: “States must help protect children and families while America accelerates its leadership in AI.”
– Senator Josh Hawley and Senator Ted Cruz: Both have been vocal opponents of what they see as federal overreach in this area.
This internal division highlights the deep ideological rift over the future of conservatism and tech regulation. Michael Toscano, of the Institute for Family Studies, called it “a huge lost opportunity by the Trump administration to lead the Republican Party into a broadly consultative process.” Instead of building consensus, the administration chose confrontation.
Where Do We Go From Here with AI Governance?
This executive order guarantees one thing: a protracted legal and political battle over the future of AI governance in the United States. The clash is no longer theoretical; it’s happening now, with the courts likely becoming the ultimate arbiter.
The Search for a Middle Ground
Is there a way to balance innovation and safety, state rights and federal leadership? The obvious, though politically difficult, solution is for Congress to act. A comprehensive federal AI law could create a baseline of protections for all Americans while potentially defining specific areas where states could legislate further. This would provide the clarity and unity the administration claims to want, but through a legitimate constitutional process rather than by decree. Without it, companies like Nvidia and their competitors are left navigating a chaotic and uncertain regulatory map.
The fight over the AI executive order legality is more than just a political squabble. It is a defining moment that will shape how the world’s most powerful democracy governs its most powerful technology. The outcome will set a precedent for decades to come, determining whether regulation is crafted through democratic debate or dictated from the top down.
What are your thoughts on this? Should the federal government have the final say on AI rules to compete with China, or should states be free to protect their residents as they see fit? Let us know in the comments below.
