A bipartisan coalition of 36 state attorneys general has moved to block the Trump administration's efforts to preempt state artificial intelligence laws, setting up a major constitutional battle.
On December 11, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled "Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence" that directs federal agencies to challenge state-level AI regulations. The order established an AI Litigation Task Force within the Department of Justice, tasked with identifying and challenging state AI laws on grounds that they violate the dormant Commerce Clause or are preempted by existing federal regulations.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said that states must be empowered to apply existing laws and formulate new approaches to meet the challenges posed by artificial intelligence. The coalition contends that constantly evolving technologies like AI require agile regulatory responses tailored to local conditions and public concerns. State leaders have emphasized their willingness to collaborate with Congress on thoughtful federal regulation rather than accept a blanket preemption that could compromise public safety and innovation. This bipartisan coalition includes attorneys general from both major political parties, reflecting deep concern about federal overreach in technology regulation.
States like California have pioneered AI governance with laws such as Senate Bill 896, known as the Generative Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act, enacted in 2024. Texas passed the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act, and Utah introduced the Artificial Intelligence Policy Act, creating a patchwork of regulations aimed at algorithmic transparency, automated decision-making oversight, and data governance.
The legal foundation for the states' defense rests on significant constitutional limitations facing the federal challenge. The Supreme Court's 2023 decision in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross established that state laws generally do not violate dormant Commerce Clause doctrine unless they discriminate against out-of-state economic interests. Legal analysts have noted that most state AI laws do not meet this discrimination standard, creating a difficult constitutional path for the Trump administration's challenge. These laws now face potential challenges from the federal government's newly formed task force, but the legal landscape favors state authority under current doctrine.
This confrontation between federal and state authority will unfold over months or years, with litigation expected to wind through multiple courts and likely appeals. The outcome will significantly shape the future of AI regulation in America, determining whether states retain authority to protect their residents from algorithmic harms or whether the federal government establishes exclusive regulatory control.
Both sides have made clear their positions are not negotiable—states view regulation as essential to public safety, while the federal government argues that uniform standards are necessary for technological progress and national security.
