Summary: President Trump’s Dec. 11 executive order frames AI as a national race and empowers federal officials to challenge state-level AI rules, including by reviewing grant conditions. At least 40 states have passed 149+ AI-related laws since 2019, and 36 bipartisan attorneys general have warned against a moratorium on state regulation. The order raises constitutional and political questions, is drawing rare bipartisan pushback, and risks splitting the Republican coalition while public support for AI safeguards remains strong.
Opinion: Trump’s AI Order Could Fracture His Coalition — Not Just Another Political Fight
President Trump’s Dec. 11 executive order casting artificial intelligence as a strategic "race" has become a surprising test of political loyalties — and a potential fault line within his own coalition. While the administration frames the move as protecting American competitiveness, the order also directs federal officials to challenge state-level AI regulation and threatens financial pressure on states that pass what it calls "onerous" rules.
What the Order Does
The order instructs the Attorney General to form an "AI Litigation Task Force" to identify and challenge state AI laws the administration deems inconsistent with federal policy. It also directs the Secretary of Commerce to review state AI laws for conflicts and to identify circumstances in which federal grants — particularly those supporting broadband access — might be conditioned on states’ regulatory approaches. Other agencies are asked to reassess discretionary grant programs for similar policy alignment.
Why States Push Back
By July, at least 40 states had enacted more than 149 laws addressing AI since 2019, covering issues from data privacy to deepfake disclosure and consumer protections. In response to a draft of the executive order, 36 state attorneys general — representing both Democratic and Republican offices — warned Congress that a moratorium on state AI laws would be harmful. They emphasized risks to children and other vulnerable groups, including AI-enabled scams, deepfakes, voice cloning, and misleading generative outputs that can exacerbate mental-health crises.
The Legal Landscape
The administration’s legal approach appears to rely heavily on the so-called Dormant Commerce Clause, arguing that some state rules improperly burden interstate commerce. But precedent and constitutional constraints complicate that strategy: the Supreme Court has rejected similar Dormant Commerce Clause arguments in the past, and the Tenth Amendment reserves many powers to the states absent conflicting federal law. Because Congress has not enacted comprehensive AI legislation, states retain significant authority to regulate in this space.
Strategic Litigation? Critics argue the administration understands these legal barriers and is instead using the threat of litigation and funding cuts as a tactic to slow state regulation and protect powerful industry interests.
Political Fractures
The order has produced an unusual bipartisan response and notable GOP pushback. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and a range of other prominent Republicans — including senators, governors and state legislators — have publicly criticized the administration’s approach. That split reflects a broader political calculation: many elected officials worry the move prioritizes corporate profits over public safety and state autonomy.
Public Opinion And Broader Risks
Public sentiment appears to favor regulation. A Gallup poll from September found 80% of respondents support government rules to ensure AI safety and data security even if those rules slow development; only 9% prioritize rapid AI advancement without such safeguards. Meanwhile, hundreds of scientists and AI experts have warned that mitigating catastrophic AI risks should be a global priority comparable to pandemics and nuclear war.
Conclusion
The executive order elevates AI from a technical policy debate to a political litmus test. Whether it succeeds in blocking or slowing state regulation remains uncertain, but its immediate effect is clear: it has already driven a rare coalition of opposition that spans party lines and threatens to erode the unity of Mr. Trump’s political movement. The central question now is whether enough lawmakers will prioritize public safety and state authority over the short-term interests of industry backers.
About the author: Kimberly Wehle is a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law and the author of How to Read the Constitution — and Why; What You Need to Know About Voting — and Why; and How to Think Like a Lawyer — and Why.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Help us improve.
