A recently leaked draft executive order suggests that the White House under Trump is preparing to assert sweeping federal control over AI regulation — potentially over‑riding state‑level laws nationwide. The proposal would give David Sacks (the White House’s “AI & Crypto Czar”) broad authority to penalize states that enact what the administration deems “onerous” AI laws. Under the draft, the federal government could cut funding — including key grants — to states for non‑compliance, forcing a near‑uniform national regulatory regime.
That push has triggered considerable backlash — not just from AI‑policy experts and civil‑liberty advocates, but also from factions within the political right, including some aligned with Trump’s base. Critics argue the order consolidates too much power in unelected hands, bypasses standard legislative process, and threatens state sovereignty. Some warn it could erode public trust in AI governance and provoke constitutional challenges.
The controversy also reflects a larger tension: on one hand, the administration frames a national standard as essential to prevent a “patchwork” of state laws — which tech companies say complicates compliance. On the other hand, many state governments and civil‑society groups argue that decentralized regulation allows local contexts, citizen concerns, and democratic oversight to shape the rules — especially around safety, bias, transparency, and algorithmic accountability.
With the draft order leaked but not yet signed, uncertainty remains high. The unfolding debate — across politics, industry, and civil‑society — could shape whether U.S. AI governance will centralize under the federal government or remain fragmented across states. Given the stakes, this could be one of the defining policy flashpoints of the coming months.
