This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
President Trump signed an executive order Thursday to discourage state governments from regulating artificial intelligence and urge Congress to pass a law preempting such regulations.
The order is likely to hit hardest in California, which since 2016 has passed more laws to regulate artificial intelligence than any other state, according to a Stanford report from earlier this year. California is also home to the world’s leading AI companies, including Anthropic, Google, Nvidia, and OpenAI.
Trump’s order would require the heads of the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, and Department of Justice to challenge state AI laws. It also calls for the development of model AI legislation to preempt or supersede state law unless those laws address children’s safety, data center infrastructure, state government use or AI, or other yet-to-be-determined areas.
For states that continue to regulate AI, the order instructs federal agencies to explore whether they can restrict grants to them, including by revoking funding known as Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment. California has a potential $1.8 billion in broadband funding at stake, much of which was committed to specific projects earlier this month and is set to deliver internet access to more than 300,000 people.
In a social media post earlier this week and remarks from the Oval Office Thursday, Trump said the executive order was written to prevent businesses from needing to comply with laws from multiple states and that having to do so threatens America’s competitive advantage over other nations. Investors in tech startups, such as the Menlo Park venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, have urged the president to restrict state AI regulation and celebrated the president signing the order.
Trump’s order specifically criticized a Colorado law that requires testing and disclosure of AI that makes consequential decisions about people’s lives and seeks to prevent discrimination, a standard California lawmakers may revisit next year.
Among recently-passed California laws that federal agencies may challenge are:
- A ban on AI makers blaming the technology itself for harming people when defending themselves in court.
- A prohibition on algorithms raising prices.
- A requirement that the makers of AI supply the public with tools to identify AI-generated photos, videos, and audio so that they can better spot fakes.
- A law going into effect next month that requires AI makers to disclose details about the data they use to train their models.
Members of Congress routinely call California an example of AI regulation run amok, but lawmakers from both major parties have supported regulating AI, with more than 70 laws passed by 27 states this year, according to a report by the Transparency Coalition. California again led the nation with the passage of roughly a dozen laws as Texas, Montana, Utah and Arkansas followed with the most AI bills signed into law this year.
The executive order comes on the heels of a second attempt in Congress to preempt state AI laws, which fell short last week. Republican members of Congress first attempted to ban AI regulation by state governments for 10 years this spring, an initiative derailed in part by concerns about the fate of a law that protects country music musicians in Tennesse and others that seek to block child sexual abuse material.
Polls show Californians and Americans support AI regulation. A Carnegie Endowment California poll released in October found that nearly 80% of Californians strongly or somewhat agree that, when it comes to AI, safety should be prioritized over innovation. A September Gallup poll also found that four out of five Americans want lawmakers to prioritize safety over innovation, even if that means the technology is developed more slowly.
In addition to endangering the lives of children, artificial intelligence can lead to false arrests, discriminate against job applicants and employees and deny people government benefits or health care that they’re entitled to. The technology is also power hungry, potentially driving upelectricity rates and endangering clean energy goals. It also needs large amounts of fresh water for the cooling systems in data centers. Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group that sued to stop a California data center project one year ago, called the executive order an early Christmas gift to big tech.
Opponents of the executive order say it leaves Californians vulnerable to harm.
“Make no mistake: this order doesn’t create new protections, it removes them. That’s not governing. That’s a dereliction of duty wrapped in yet another distraction from a fracturing MAGA movement and a president who doesn’t understand the real dangers of rapidly advancing tech,” State Sen. Tom Umberg, a Democrat representing Santa Ana, said in a statement last month, when a draft of the executive order leaked to the press.
In the California Legislature enthusiasm for regulating AI shows little sign of abating. More than 100 film industry workers from groups like the Animation Guild and SAG-AFTRA showed up at a committee hearing earlier this week about protecting the work of creatives. Many spoke in support of a bill requiring AI companies to disclose what copyrighted material they use to train their models.
Animation Guild president Danny Lin said at the hearing that AI threatens nearly 40,000 jobs in California’s film, television, and animation industries.
“L.A. is bleeding out before my very eyes,” Lin told state lawmakers.
In response to the executive order Lin told CalMatters calling out a Colorado law that seeks to prevent discrimination and protect working class people doesn’t give her confidence that the legislation the president is calling for will address the concerns of creatives whose work is used to train generative AI models.
“It’s pretty apparent that if we had a federal government that was actually focused on regulating this technology then the states would not feel the need to step in and create state specific legislation,” she said.