Executive Order 14365 — Ensuring a National Policy Framework for AI
Summary
Section titled “Summary”Executive Order 14365 — “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence” was signed by President Trump on 2025-12-11. Its core intent: launch federal preemption against state-level AI legislation, using administrative and litigation mechanisms to blunt the enforceability of state AI laws.
Historical position: this is the third wave of the Trump administration’s AI deregulatory strategy (2025-01 EO 14179 revoked Biden → 2025-07 AI Action Plan → 2025-12 EO 14365 preempts state laws), a direct response to the “state-law fragmentation” pressure from the 1,208 state AI bills introduced and 145 state laws enacted in 2025.
Core mechanisms
Section titled “Core mechanisms”1. AI Litigation Task Force
Section titled “1. AI Litigation Task Force”- Established by the Attorney General, operational by 2026-01-10
- Function: bring federal court challenges against state AI laws, grounded in:
- Unconstitutionality (dormant Commerce Clause)
- Federal preemption
- Likely targets (per industry speculation): Colorado AI Act, California SB 53, Texas TRAIGA, Illinois AI employment law
2. Commerce Department assessment of state AI laws
Section titled “2. Commerce Department assessment of state AI laws”Before 2026-03-11, the Commerce Secretary is to publish:
- A systematic assessment of state AI laws, identifying “unduly burdensome” statutes
- An FTC policy statement on when state laws are preempted by the FTC Act
3. Federal funding conditions
Section titled “3. Federal funding conditions”- BEAD broadband funds: cut non-deployment funds for states with “onerous” AI regulation
- Agency AI discretionary funds: consider a state’s AI regulatory climate as a grant factor
4. Federal legislative recommendations
Section titled “4. Federal legislative recommendations”The Special Advisor (AI + Cybersecurity) and the Assistant to the President for Science & Technology Policy are to jointly prepare legislative recommendations to push Congress to pass a unified AI law that replaces the state-law patchwork.
Express carve-outs (outside preemption)
Section titled “Express carve-outs (outside preemption)”Three areas are exempt from preemption:
- Child safety (child safety in AI contexts) — recognizing states’ exclusive power to protect minors
- AI compute and data-center infrastructure (including local data-center zoning approval)
- State government procurement of AI systems
Legal controversy
Section titled “Legal controversy”Can an executive order preempt state law?
Section titled “Can an executive order preempt state law?”Prevailing legal view: an EO alone cannot preempt.
- The constitutional source of federal preemption is congressional legislation plus the Supreme Court’s Supremacy Clause jurisprudence
- An EO can only direct federal executive-branch conduct; it cannot on its own override state law
- EO 14365 “likely [will] not independently displace state AI laws” — a consensus view among White & Case, Littler, and other legal commentators
Practical effects:
- Litigation chilling (raises costs for firms and state governments)
- Federal funding leverage (indirect pressure)
- Laying the discursive and litigation groundwork to push Congress toward legislation
State pushback
Section titled “State pushback”- California: Governor Newsom stated publicly that “SB 53 is not subject to preemption”
- Colorado: the AG insists on 6-30 effective date (already postponed)
- NAAG (National Association of Attorneys General): most state AGs question EO 14365’s constitutionality
Compliance implications
Section titled “Compliance implications”Short term (as of 2026-04):
- Existing state laws (Colorado, California SB 53, Texas TRAIGA) have not been preempted
- Companies must continue to comply until litigation produces clear rulings
- The 2026-03-11 Commerce assessment will reveal which state laws get “named and shamed”
Medium term (2026-2027):
- Federal litigation will proceed state-by-state
- Deep-blue states such as California and New York may respond with counter-legislation
- Whether Congress pushes a unified AI act hinges on the 2026 midterms
Relationship to prior policy
Section titled “Relationship to prior policy”| Date | Instrument | Intent |
|---|---|---|
| 2025-01-23 | EO 14179 | Revokes Biden EO 14110, sets deregulatory tone |
| 2025-04-03 | OMB M-25-21 / M-25-22 | Federal agency AI use and procurement guidance |
| 2025-07-23 | Trump AI Action Plan + 3 EOs | 25-page strategy + anti-woke + data centers |
| 2025-12-11 | EO 14365 (this page) | State-law preemption campaign |
Trajectory: from “revoke the predecessor” → “draft the strategy” → “suppress state-level legislation” — a three-step sequence.
Text and archives
Section titled “Text and archives”| Source | Link |
|---|---|
| The White House | whitehouse.gov/…/eliminating-state-law-obstruction |
| American Presidency Project | presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-14365 |
| White & Case commentary | whitecase.com/…/state-ai-laws-under-federal-scrutiny |
Version history
Section titled “Version history”| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2025-12-11 | Signed |
| 2026-01-10 | AI Litigation Task Force operational |
| 2026-03-11 | Commerce state-law assessment due |
| 2026-Q2+ | Litigation proceeds (expected) |