- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in Ireland
- with readers working within the Banking & Credit, Business & Consumer Services and Retail & Leisure industries
On December 11, 2025, US President Donald Trump issued the Executive Order Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (the "EO"), which seeks to advance "a minimally burdensome national policy framework" for artificial intelligence ("AI"). The EO adds to other recent executive actions by the second Trump Administration, including the January 2025 revocation of President Joe Biden's executive order on artificial intelligence, the June 2025 executive order amending and superseding the Biden executive order, the July 2025 AI Action Plan, and the November 2025 launch of the Genesis Mission.
Issued against the backdrop of consideration and passage of numerous pieces of AI legislation in Colorado, California, New York, and other states, the EO emphasizes the Administration's strong preference for setting uniform national standards for AI. The EO links US leadership in AI to economic and national security imperatives, and highlights the Administration's concern with "the most onerous and excessive laws emerging from the States that threaten to stymie innovation. It declares a federal policy to sustain and enhance global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national framework, and announces the Administration's intent to work with Congress on uniform federal standards that would supersede conflicting state laws.
The operative parts of the EO direct executive agencies to take the following actions:
1. Department of Justice AI Litigation Task Force
The EO directs the Attorney General to establish an AI Litigation Task Force within 30 days to challenge state AI laws inconsistent with federal policy. The Task Force is directed to challenge AI laws on theories that include unconstitutional burdens on interstate commerce, preemption by existing federal statutes or regulations, and other bases the Attorney General deems appropriate. The task force is also directed to coordinate with designated White House advisors in prioritizing which laws to challenge.
2. Department of Commerce Evaluation of State AI Laws
Within 90 days, the Order instructs the Secretary of Commerce to publish an evaluation of existing state AI laws that identifies those deemed "onerous" and in conflict with the national policy, including those that require models to alter truthful outputs or that compel disclosures or reporting in ways that would violate the Constitution. The evaluation must flag specific laws for referral to the DOJ Task Force and, as appropriate, may identify state approaches that the Secretary views as promoting innovation consistent with the national policy.
3. Restrictions on State Funding and BEAD Program
The EO directs the Secretary of Commerce to issue a policy notice within 90 days specifying conditions under which states are eligible for remaining non-deployment funds under the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program. The notice must provide that states with onerous AI laws identified in the Commerce evaluation are ineligible for those funds. It further instructs executive agencies to assess whether discretionary grant programs can be conditioned on states not enacting conflicting AI laws or agreeing not to enforce such laws during the grant performance period.
4. FCC Proceeding on a Federal Reporting and Disclosure Standard
The EO directs the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") Chair to initiate a proceeding, within 90 days after Commerce publishes its state-law evaluation, to determine whether to adopt a federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that would preempt conflicting state laws. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr issued a press release the following day to welcome the EO's direction to the FCC.
5. FTC Policy Statement on Preemption of State Laws Mandating Deceptive Conduct
The Order directs the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") Chair to issue a policy statement within 90 days, explaining how the FTC Act's prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts or practices applies to AI models and describing circumstances under which state laws that require alterations to the truthful outputs of AI models are preempted.
6. Legislative Recommendation for a Uniform Federal Framework with Carveouts
Finally, the Order tasks the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto and the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology with preparing a legislative recommendation to establish a uniform federal AI framework that preempts state laws in conflict with the national policy. The recommendation is directed to exclude from proposed preemption state laws relating to child safety protections, AI compute and data center infrastructure, and state procurement and governmental use of AI, with flexibility to add other topics.
Visit us at mayerbrown.com
Mayer Brown is a global services provider comprising associated legal practices that are separate entities, including Mayer Brown LLP (Illinois, USA), Mayer Brown International LLP (England & Wales), Mayer Brown (a Hong Kong partnership) and Tauil & Chequer Advogados (a Brazilian law partnership) and non-legal service providers, which provide consultancy services (collectively, the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are established in various jurisdictions and may be a legal person or a partnership. PK Wong & Nair LLC ("PKWN") is the constituent Singapore law practice of our licensed joint law venture in Singapore, Mayer Brown PK Wong & Nair Pte. Ltd. Details of the individual Mayer Brown Practices and PKWN can be found in the Legal Notices section of our website. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of Mayer Brown.
© Copyright 2025. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.
This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.
