Federal: AI Executive Order: Push Toward One National Standard

What happened?

On December 11, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) entitled “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence” aimed at reducing/neutralizing state AI regulations in favor of a “single national framework.” The order does not automatically erase state AI laws. Instead, it sets up federal actions that could challenge, discourage, or override certain state requirements over time. The administration’s stated goal is to avoid a 50-state “patchwork” and move toward one national approach to AI.

Overview

Why this matters: Many state AI laws focus on high-impact decisions (e.g., hiring tools, screening, and automated decision systems). State requirements may remain enforceable unless a court blocks them, or a new federal law replaces them. This EO is a directive to federal agencies to begin challenging state AI laws—not a regulatory change for employers.

Actions Steps for Compliance

• Stay compliant with state AI laws (Colorado, California, Illinois, New York, etc.).
• Inventory AI tools used for hiring, promotion, monitoring, scheduling, productivity scoring, sentiment analysis, and safety prediction.
• Strengthen AI governance: bias testing, human-in-the-loop controls, vendor documentation, and risk assessments.
• Update vendor contracts to allow flexibility if rules change.

Monitor Timeline

• Within 30 days: DOJ forms the AI Litigation Task Force
• Within 90 days: Commerce publishes the “onerous laws” evaluation and issues BEAD funding conditions.
• After Commerce’s list: Potential lawsuits and early court activity (including possible injunctions).
• Following Commerce’s identification: FCC and FTC actions may shape federal standards and preemption arguments.
• Ongoing: Drafting of a proposed federal AI framework for Congress.

What the order Does Not Intend to Target: In its legislative recommendation, the order says it will not propose preempting otherwise lawful state AI laws related to:

• Child safety protections
• AI compute/data center infrastructure (except generally applicable permitting reforms)
• State government procurement and use of AI
• Other topics as determined
• They are not a blanket guarantee that no disputes will arise in these areas.

Additional Information

What the Executive Order directs the federal government to do

1) Create a federal litigation track (DOJ): Within 30 days, the Department of Justice must form an AI Litigation Task Force whose sole job is to challenge state AI laws the administration views as unlawful (e.g., interstate commerce and federal preemption arguments).

2) Identify “onerous” state AI laws (Commerce)

• Within 90 days, the Department of Commerce must publish an evaluation identifying state AI laws considered “onerous” and potentially suitable for legal challenge.

• The evaluation must flag, at minimum, laws that the administration believes:
  • require AI models to alter “truthful outputs,” or
  • compel disclosures in ways that could raise constitutional concerns.

3) Apply funding pressure (Commerce + other agencies)

• Commerce must issue a BEAD broadband funding policy notice that may make states with “onerous” AI laws ineligible for certain non-deployment funds (as permitted by law).

• Federal agencies must also review whether discretionary grants can be conditioned on states:
  • not adopting conflicting AI laws, or
  • agreeing not to enforce those laws during the grant period.

4) Build federal “preemption tools” through agencies (FCC + FTC)

• Federal Communications Commission (FCC): Initiate a proceeding to consider a federal AI reporting/disclosure standard that could preempt conflicting state requirements.

• Federal Trade Commission (FTC): Issue guidance explaining when state laws that require changes to “truthful outputs” could be preempted under the FTC Act’s prohibition on deceptive practices.

5) Propose a federal law (bridge to Congress): The administration must prepare a legislative recommendation for a uniform federal AI framework that would preempt state laws conflicting with the EO’s policy direction.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Executive Order trying to do? The EO (which you can read here) seeks to reduce the impact of state AI regulations and move toward a single national framework by:

• Directing the Commerce Department to identify “onerous” state AI laws and refer some for DOJ challenge.
• Creating a DOJ AI Litigation Task Force to contest certain state laws as unconstitutional or preempted.
• Leveraging federal funding (e.g., broadband grants) to discourage states from enforcing conflicting AI rules.
• Initiating FCC and FTC actions that could preempt state requirements.
• Urging Congress to enact a federal preemption standard.

Does the EO immediately invalidate state AI laws? No. All current and pending state and local AI laws remain enforceable unless blocked by a court or preempted by future federal legislation.

Which state/local employment AI laws are likely in scope? Beyond Colorado’s statute, expect scrutiny of:

• California’s disclosure mandates
• New York City’s bias audit rules
• Illinois’s notice and anti-bias requirements
• Virginia’s anticipated AI law covering healthcare 

What happens in the next 30 days? The Attorney General must establish an AI Litigation Task Force dedicated to challenging state AI laws inconsistent with the EO’s policy.

Are employers targets of DOJ’s AI Litigation Task Force? No. The EO focuses on lawsuits against states or state officials enforcing AI laws—not employers using AI tools.

Source References

• White House – Fact Sheet (December 11, 2025)
• White House Executive Order (EO) – Ensuring A National Policy Framework For Artificial Intelligence

This communication is intended solely for the purpose of conveying information. The present post might incorporate hyperlinks directing readers to websites managed by third-party entities. The inclusion of any links within this communication is meant to serve as points of reference and could encompass opinion articles from various law firms, articles from HR associations, official websites, news releases, and documents of government agencies, and other relevant third-party sources. Vensure has no authority over these external websites and bears no responsibility for their content. Furthermore, Vensure does not endorse the materials present on these websites. The contents of this communication should not be interpreted as legal advice or as a legal standpoint concerning specific facts or scenarios. Nor should it be deemed an exhaustive compilation of facts potentially pertinent to federal, state, or local laws. It is strongly advised that employers solicit legal guidance from an employment attorney when undertaking actions in response to any legal updates provided. This is due to the possibility of future alterations occurring in federal, state, and local laws, regulations, as well as the directives and guidelines issued by governing agencies. These changes may transpire at any given time, potentially rendering certain portions of the content within this update void or inaccurate.