The Assault on States' Rights: Trump's Dangerous AI Power Grab

The Executive Order and Its Implications

President Donald Trump’s recent executive order targeting state artificial intelligence regulations represents one of the most significant federal power grabs in recent memory. Signed on Thursday evening, the order establishes an AI Litigation Task Force specifically designed to bring court challenges against states with AI-related laws, with limited exceptions for issues like child safety protections. Additionally, the order directs the commerce secretary to notify states that they could lose certain broadband funding if their laws conflict with national AI policy priorities.

This move comes amid a broader administration effort to rein in state AI laws and loosen restrictions for developers and technology companies. The Trump administration had previously released an AI Action Plan aimed at reducing regulatory barriers and accelerated growth of AI infrastructure, while also revoking Biden-era AI safety and anti-discrimination policies. The tech industry actively lobbied for this executive order, viewing state regulations as obstacles to innovation and profitability.

State Resistance and Bipartisan Opposition

Despite these federal efforts, state lawmakers from both parties are demonstrating remarkable resilience. Legislators across the country are continuing to prefile AI-related legislation for their 2026 sessions, showing determination to protect their constituents from potential AI harms. The depth of opposition became clear when 280 state lawmakers from across the political spectrum signed a letter to Congress opposing federal legislation that would curtail state AI laws.

South Carolina Republican state Rep. Brandon Guffey, who penned the letter, articulated the sentiment shared by many: “I agree on not overregulating, but I don’t believe the federal government has the right to take away my right to protect my constituents if there’s an issue with AI.” This bipartisan coalition understands that AI regulation isn’t about partisan politics—it’s about fundamental responsibilities to citizens.

States have already made significant progress in AI governance. South Dakota enacted its first AI law prohibiting deepfakes in elections. Colorado passed the nation’s first comprehensive AI framework requiring developers to protect consumers from algorithmic discrimination. California established a legal framework for developers of advanced AI models aimed at preventing catastrophic harm. These represent thoughtful, measured approaches to emerging technology.

The Constitutional Crisis in the Making

What we’re witnessing is nothing short of a constitutional crisis in development. The executive branch is attempting to override the legitimate legislative authority of sovereign states—a move that strikes at the very heart of American federalism. The founders specifically designed our system to allow states to serve as “laboratories of democracy,” experimenting with solutions to emerging challenges before federal consensus emerges.

South Dakota Democratic state Sen. Liz Larson, who co-wrote the bipartisan letter, perfectly captured the danger: “To take away all of this work in a heartbeat and then prevent states from learning those lessons, without providing any alternative framework at the federal level, is just irresponsible. It takes power away from the states.” This isn’t just about AI regulation; it’s about whether states retain their constitutional authority to protect their citizens.

The administration’s justification—that we need “one source of approval or disapproval” to compete with China—represents a fundamentally authoritarian worldview. Since when did American innovation require centralized control? Since when did beating China require sacrificing democratic principles and states’ rights? This rhetoric should alarm every citizen who values our constitutional system of checks and balances.

The Dangerous Precedent of Federal Coercion

The threat to withhold broadband funding from states that don’t comply with administration preferences represents particularly troubling federal coercion. This isn’t governance; it’s extortion. The Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program exists to ensure all Americans have access to essential connectivity, not as a bargaining chip for policy compliance.

This approach sets a dangerous precedent that could extend far beyond AI regulation. If the federal government can threaten essential funding to force policy compliance, what prevents future administrations from using similar tactics on healthcare, education, or environmental protection? The erosion of federalism principles threatens the entire framework of American governance.

Travis Hall, director for state engagement at the Center for Democracy & Technology, rightly noted that the order’s “intent… is to chill any actual oversight, accountability or regulation.” This chilling effect represents exactly the kind of government overreach that should concern citizens across the political spectrum.

The Innovation Fallacy

The administration and its tech industry allies argue that state regulations create a “patchwork” that hinders innovation. This argument fundamentally misunderstands both innovation and regulation. Responsible regulation doesn’t stifle innovation—it channels it toward beneficial outcomes while protecting against harm. The automobile industry didn’t suffer from seat belt requirements; it adapted and innovated within responsible boundaries.

Furthermore, the notion that innovation requires complete deregulation is historically inaccurate and dangerously shortsighted. The internet itself grew under a framework of reasonable regulations that prevented the worst abuses while allowing creativity to flourish. The absence of regulation often leads to race-to-the-bottom scenarios where companies prioritize profit over safety, ethics, and public welfare.

The Human Cost of Deregulation

Behind the policy debates lie real human consequences. Without state-level protections, citizens remain vulnerable to algorithmic discrimination, privacy violations, deepfake manipulation in elections, and unchecked corporate surveillance. These aren’t abstract concerns—they represent real threats to democracy, civil rights, and personal autonomy.

Colorado’s legislation addressing algorithmic discrimination recognizes that AI systems can perpetuate and amplify human biases, affecting hiring, lending, housing, and criminal justice. California’s framework for advanced AI models acknowledges the potential for catastrophic harm. These aren’t hypothetical scenarios; they’re present realities requiring thoughtful governance.

The administration’s willingness to revoke Biden-era anti-discrimination policies specifically designed to protect vulnerable communities reveals a disturbing priority system. When corporate interests trump civil rights protections, we’ve abandoned the fundamental promise of equal protection under the law.

The Path Forward: Defending Federalism

The appropriate response to this executive overreach is clear: continued state resistance, legal challenges, and congressional action. As Colorado state Rep. Brianna Titone correctly noted, “the president doesn’t have the authority to supersede state law” without congressional action. States must continue exercising their constitutional responsibilities to protect their citizens.

California officials are already considering legal challenges, and other states should join them. Congress should reject administration efforts to impose moratoriums on state AI laws—efforts that have already failed twice this year. Most importantly, citizens must recognize that this isn’t just about AI; it’s about whether we maintain a system where states can protect their residents from emerging threats when the federal government fails to act.

Conclusion: Principles Over Power

This moment calls for defenders of democracy to stand firm. The principles of federalism, states’ rights, and balanced governance aren’t abstract concepts—they’re the bedrock of our system. When an administration prioritizes corporate interests over citizen protection, when it threatens essential funding to force compliance, when it seeks to centralize power at the expense of democratic experimentation—we must resist.

The bipartisan coalition of state lawmakers opposing this overreach gives hope that our system still works. Republicans and Democrats alike recognize that protecting constituents from AI harms transcends partisan politics. They understand that innovation without responsibility isn’t progress—it’s recklessness.

As citizens, we must support these state efforts, contact our representatives, and demand that constitutional principles prevail over executive overreach. The future of American democracy may well depend on whether we successfully defend the right of states to protect their citizens in the face of emerging technological challenges. This isn’t about left versus right; it’s about right versus wrong. And centralizing power while stripping away protections is fundamentally wrong for America.