Trump Power Grab: States Cut Out of AI

President Trump is moving to strip states of their power to regulate artificial intelligence, centralizing control in Washington and removing what his administration calls “ideological” constraints from AI development.

At a Glance

Trump administration released “America’s AI Action Plan” in July 2025, signing three executive orders to centralize AI regulation at the federal level and override state laws.
The policy explicitly targets removal of DEI and civil rights language from federal AI frameworks, prioritizing rapid innovation over protection standards.
White House signals intent to override state AI laws through executive action and legal challenges, conditioning federal grants on compliance with federal standards.
Tech industry largely supports federal preemption to reduce compliance costs, but states and civil rights advocates warn the deregulatory approach prioritizes corporate interests over public welfare.
Federal agencies are revising procurement and risk management frameworks while the FCC evaluates preemption of state AI laws, with legal battles anticipated.

Trump Administration Centralizes AI Authority

On July 23, 2025, President Trump announced the release of “America’s AI Action Plan” and signed three executive orders aimed at consolidating AI regulation under federal control. The administration argues that a patchwork of state-level regulations—particularly from California and New York—threatens economic growth and U.S. global competitiveness.

This marks a decisive shift from fragmented state governance toward centralized federal authority over artificial intelligence development and deployment across the nation.

Removing “Ideological” Constraints from AI

A core element of Trump’s AI policy involves explicitly removing what the administration terms “ideological influences” from federal AI frameworks. This includes stripping DEI and civil rights language from the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s AI Risk Management Framework.

The administration contends that such considerations slow innovation and impose unnecessary burdens on developers. Critics warn that removing civil rights protections could increase risks of bias and discrimination in AI systems that affect hiring, lending, and law enforcement decisions.

The White House has directed federal agencies to revise procurement standards and risk management guidelines to align with this deregulatory approach. The Federal Communications Commission is specifically tasked with assessing how to preempt state AI laws in the communications sector, signaling aggressive federal overreach into areas traditionally governed by states.

Federal Preemption Challenges State Authority

The Trump administration is signaling intent to override state AI laws through executive action and legal challenges. As of November 2025, the White House is considering conditioning federal grants on state compliance with federal standards—a mechanism designed to coerce state cooperation.

This approach directly challenges the constitutional balance between federal and state power, consolidating regulatory authority in Washington and diminishing states’ ability to protect their citizens according to local values and needs.

Industry largely supports this centralization, with tech companies citing the burden of complying with multiple conflicting state regulations. However, states with active AI governance frameworks and civil rights organizations are mounting resistance, arguing that federal preemption undermines state experimentation and removes critical protections for workers and consumers affected by automated decision-making systems.

Legal Battles and Political Tensions Loom

Legal experts anticipate significant litigation over the scope of federal authority and states’ rights. The conflict pits the Trump administration’s vision of rapid, innovation-focused AI development against concerns from states and advocacy groups about fairness, transparency, and civil rights protections.

Federal agencies are actively revising frameworks to implement the new policy, creating immediate uncertainty for companies operating across multiple state jurisdictions and setting the stage for protracted constitutional disputes.