According to PYMNTS.com, a new White House executive order titled “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence” was issued on December 1, 2025. It directly cites an earlier order from January 23, 2025, and frames AI leadership as a national security and economic priority. The order argues that state laws, like Colorado’s “algorithmic discrimination” law, create burdens and can push models toward “ideological bias.” To counter this, it directs the Attorney General to create an “AI Litigation Task Force” within 30 days to challenge such laws. Within 90 days, the Commerce Department must publish a list of “onerous” state AI laws. Furthermore, the order links remaining BEAD program broadband funding to a state’s AI regulatory stance, to the maximum extent allowed by law.
The Federal Preemption Playbook
This isn’t just a policy paper. It’s a multi-agency legal and financial offensive. Creating a dedicated litigation task force at the Justice Department is a hugely aggressive move. It signals the administration is ready to fight state laws in court, likely on grounds that they interfere with interstate commerce or are preempted by existing federal authority. And using broadband funding as a stick? That’s a classic federal leverage point. The message to state capitals is clear: fall in line with our national AI vision, or it could cost you. It’s a full-court press for federal primacy.
The “Truthful Outputs” Debate
Here’s where it gets philosophically messy. The order repeatedly warns against state laws that force models to alter “truthful outputs.” They’re basically putting “free speech” for AI on a pedestal. But what *is* a truthful output from a large language model that statistically generates words? Is a historically biased output “truthful”? The administration seems to be siding with developers who argue that attempts to mitigate algorithmic bias—like Colorado’s law—are a form of compelled, ideologically-driven speech. It’s framing the debate as one of innovation and factual integrity versus regulatory overreach. That’s a powerful narrative, but it massively oversimplifies a complex ethical field.
The Bigger Deregulatory Agenda
Look, this order isn’t an isolated thing. As PYMNTS notes, it’s part of a consistent thread. There was the House push for a 10-year moratorium on state AI rules. There’s the use of AI *inside* government to find regulations to cut. The whole “Winning the AI Race” mantra is built on speed and removing barriers. So this move against states is the logical external counterpart to internal deregulation. The goal is a single, minimal national standard to, as they see it, out-innovate China. The risk, of course, is a race to the bottom on safeguards. When you’re moving this fast to dismantle obstacles, you might not notice which ones were actually guardrails.
What Happens Next?
Get ready for legal battles, basically. States like Colorado and California aren’t just going to roll over. They’ll argue they have a right to protect their citizens from algorithmic harm. The courts are going to become the new AI policy battleground. And what about Congress? The order says the administration must “act with the Congress,” but with a divided legislature, a national standard seems far off. This executive action is a way to set the table and force the issue. In the meantime, for companies building AI, the promise of one rulebook is tantalizing. But the immediate future is more uncertainty, not less, as federal and state authorities clash. It’s a high-stakes power grab, and we’re all just watching the initial skirmishes.
