The Trump administration’s stance on state-level artificial intelligence regulation may be shifting, despite recent rhetoric from the president calling for a single national standard. Earlier this week, President Trump posted on social media that the U.S. needs “one Federal Standard instead of a patchwork of 50 State Regulatory Regimes,” signaling frustration with individual states passing their own AI rules. Yet, new reports suggest that the administration may be retreating from its initial hardline approach.
A 10-year federal moratorium on state AI regulation was originally included in Trump’s sweeping “Big Beautiful Bill,” a legislative package designed to consolidate national technology governance. However, the proposal sparked significant bipartisan resistance, and the Senate ultimately voted 99–1 to remove the provision. That removal prompted the administration to explore alternative strategies for curbing state-level authority.
According to earlier reports, the White House had been drafting an executive order that would create an AI Litigation Task Force empowered to challenge state AI laws in court. The draft also included a punitive mechanism that could threaten states with the loss of federal broadband funding if they enacted laws deemed hostile to national AI policy.
Such aggressive tactics drew criticism from governors, legal scholars, and even some Republican lawmakers who viewed the plan as federal overreach inconsistent with conservative principles of states’ rights.
Now, Reuters is reporting that the executive order has been put on hold. While it is not clear whether the plan is being revised, delayed, or abandoned entirely, the pause suggests growing recognition within the administration that confronting state governments head-on could trigger political backlash especially ahead of a contentious regulatory year.
The debate over AI regulation has exposed deep divides not only between states and the federal government, but also within the tech industry itself. In Silicon Valley, some companies particularly those aligned with the administration have criticized firms like Anthropic for supporting stricter state-level AI safety frameworks such as California’s SB 53. Others argue that state innovation is essential to preventing unchecked AI development.
As the administration recalibrates its strategy, the question remains: will the U.S. pursue a unified national AI policy, or continue navigating a fragmented landscape shaped by individual states? For now, the future of AI governance remains uncertain and increasingly political.
