Trump Eyes National AI Rules Overriding State Authority

The New American ^ | November 20, 2025 | Veronika Kyrylenko

[E. Pluribus Unum]

President Donald Trump is preparing an executive order that would sharply limit state authority over artificial intelligence (AI). The draft, reported by The Verge, casts AI innovation as a national-security priority and warns that state rules threaten economic growth and technological leadership. Yet the plan likely violates the 10th Amendment, which reserves core regulatory and police powers to the states. It also outlines an unusually aggressive federal campaign to preempt and override state laws.

Trump previewed the move in a post on Truth Social on Tuesday:

Investment in AI is helping to make the U.S. Economy the “HOTTEST” in the World, but overregulation by the States is threatening to undermine this Major Growth “Engine.”

He then argued that “Some States are even trying to embed DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] ideology into AI models, producing ‘Woke AI’.”

His message pointed to a single solution — a fully centralized regime:

We MUST have one Federal Standard instead of a patchwork of 50 State Regulatory Regimes.

Without it, he warned, “China will easily catch us in the AI race.” He urged Congress to “Put it in the [National Defense Authorization Act], or pass a separate Bill.”

The draft executive order functions as the administration’s “plan B” should Congress not act. It reveals how far the White House intends to go to impose a national AI framework that overrides divergent state approaches.

State “Discordance” as a Burden

The draft order’s opening section declares that American “leadership in Artificial Intelligence (AI) will promote American national and economic security and dominance across many domains.” It cites Executive Order 14179, which revoked what Trump calls Joe Biden’s attempt “to paralyze this industry.” It stresses that the United States is “still in a race with adversaries for supremacy...”

---

TOPICS: Computers/Internet
KEYWORDS:

[dpetty121263]

Just the Federal stamp of approval on sanctioning mass layoffs.

[one guy in new jersey]

AI power and water needs can’t be allowed to burden the American people unduly. Displacing the needs of actual people or pricing ordinary people out.

[Jim W N]

Uh, constitutionally, the Legislative Branch, Congress, makes the laws, not the Executive Branch.

Hello?

[vivenne]

NO.

[Leaning Right]

The President’s most important job is ensuring national security.

But this AI thing does not seem to be a grave threat to national security.
Therefore, the 10th Amendment should apply.

[usurper]

Therefore, the 10th Amendment should apply.

This is clearly a interstate commerce issue. I can't see how this works any other way. Imagen if every state could regulate the internet. There would be no way providers could operate with 50 different sets of state regulations, many conflicting with other states.

I don't want to get into a situation where no IQ voters in California can dictate what the rest of the country can do.

[plain talk]

OK but shouldn’t the same idea be applied to automobile and other product standards?

Since that’s not happening I would be surprised if this holds up either.

[9YearLurker]

It’s actually even worse than that.

[lastchance]

That is what I learned in school as well. I also don’t know where the assertion that legislation regarding AI was not a state responsibility comes from.

[Leaning Right]

> This is clearly an interstate commerce issue. <

That’s a fair point. But when you think of it, everything is potentially an interstate commerce issue. A farmer in Iowa sells wheat that ends up in Illinois. Therefore, the federal government can regulate that wheat.

The Founders were wary of a too-powerful central government. Hence the 10A. Unfortunately, the 10A has routinely been ignored. Excuses are always found. That’s very bad for the Republic.

Of course, your mileage may vary.

[Carry_Okie]

Yet the plan likely violates the 10th Amendment, which reserves core regulatory and police powers to the states.

Oddly to some, there is a counter argument here: The principal original purpose of the Commerce Clause was to prevent trade barriers among States, effectively making the US a free-trade zone. IOW AI will likely pose a series of complicated questions from a Constitutional perspective, not so easily reduced to a flippant assertion of the 10th Amendment, with Mr. Musk's ambitions going wildly beyond that.

[circlecity]

I don’t like this. A big payoff to big tech. A big brother.

[Mastador1]

Uh, constitutionally, the Legislative Branch, Congress, makes the laws, not the Executive Branch.

Took until the fourth post😧