California Gov. Gavin Newsom condemned President Trump's executive order to preempt state AI laws, calling it driven by "grift and corruption." The order charges a federal task force with reviewing state AI rules and could pursue litigation or withhold federal broadband funding from states that the administration deems obstructive. California leaders, child-safety advocates, unions and other officials have vowed legal and political pushback, citing the state's recent Transparency in Frontier AI law as an example of balanced regulation.
Newsom Slams Trump AI Order As "Grift And Corruption," Vows Legal Challenge
California governor Gavin Newsom speaks during an election night press conference in Sacramento, California, on 4 November.Photograph: Godofredo A Vásquez/AP
Hours after President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at blocking states from setting their own artificial intelligence rules, California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued a sharp rebuke, accusing the administration of prioritizing "grift and corruption" over sound policy.
In a statement released the same evening the order became public, Newsom singled out the administration's AI adviser, David Sacks, calling the move "a con" and warning that the White House was testing how far it could push preemption of state law.
What the Order Does
The executive order directs the creation of a federal AI litigation task force charged with reviewing state laws that, in the administration's view, do not "enhance the United States' global AI dominance." The task force could pursue legal action against states and even consider withholding federal broadband funding from jurisdictions it deems obstructive. The order also instructs the administration to consult with its AI and crypto adviser to identify which state laws to target.
Immediate Backlash
The order was widely welcomed by major tech companies that have lobbied against a patchwork of state regulations, but it immediately drew fierce opposition from a broad coalition of lawmakers, labor leaders, civil-rights groups and child-safety advocates.
"President Trump and David Sacks aren’t making policy — they’re running a con. Every day, they push the limits to see how far they can take it," Gov. Gavin Newsom said.
California — home to many leading AI companies and one of the most active states in passing AI rules — quickly positioned itself as a center of resistance. Representative Sara Jacobs called the directive "deeply misguided, wildly corrupt" and said lawmakers would pursue remedies "from the courts to Congress." After a draft of the order leaked in November, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said his office would "take steps to examine the legality or potential illegality of such an executive order."
State Laws and Federal Rivalry
In September, Newsom signed the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, which requires developers of powerful "frontier models" to submit transparency reports and promptly notify authorities of safety incidents; violations can carry fines up to $1 million. State leaders say California’s law provides a model for balanced regulation and safeguards that the federal order now threatens to nullify.
Voices Against Preemption
Opponents argue the administration has offered no comprehensive federal regulatory framework to replace state protections. Labor groups, including the AFL-CIO, called the order an attempt to "give tech billionaires unchecked power over working people's jobs, rights and freedoms." Child-safety advocates, bereaved parents and groups such as Common Sense Media warned the order could worsen harms to children linked to unsafe AI products.
Even some figures close to the president expressed reservations. Steve Bannon told Axios that David Sacks had "completely misled the President on preemption," and other policy voices urged more targeted regulation rather than broad preemption.
What Comes Next
Legal challenges are likely, and state officials from California and beyond have signaled they will explore court and legislative options. The dispute sets up a potentially consequential clash over whether states can continue to pioneer AI rules — particularly around safety and transparency — or whether the federal government can override them in the name of national technology competitiveness.
The debate also raises broader questions about how to balance innovation, public safety and democratic accountability as artificial intelligence systems become more powerful and widely deployed.
