Jacob E. Craft
402.978.5341jcraft@fraserstryker.com email Jacob
AI tools have become essential for individuals and companies worldwide, from simple internet searches to professional applications such as hiring and ghostwriting.
This surge of global AI use has caught the attention of the White House, including President Donald J. Trump and former President Joe Biden. On December 11, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order (“EO”) 14365, “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence.”
According to the Trump administration, the purpose of EO 14365 is to establish the United States’ AI leadership and supremacy. (EO 14365 § 1). Accordingly, this EO states, “United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation.” Id. Moreover, in the eyes of the current Trump administration, “excessive State regulation thwarts this imperative.” Id.
Ultimately, this executive order aims to “sustain and enhance the United States’ global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI.” (Id. at § 2). As part of this goal to establish a minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI, this EO, in part, seeks to address state-by-state regulation, which “by definition creates a patchwork of 50 different regulatory regimes that makes compliance more challenging, particularly for start-ups.” (Id. at § 1).
Thus, a focus of this EO is to review and analyze current state AI laws and challenge those laws that are in opposition to EO 14365. This is to be achieved through several means, including Task Force and Reporting, Funding, and Proposed Legislation.
Task Force and Reporting
Pursuant to EO 14365, by no later than January 10, 2026, an AI Litigation Task Force (“Task Force”) was to be created under the Attorney General “whose sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws inconsistent with the policy” of EO 14365. (Id. at § 3).
In addition to the Task Force, by no later than March 11, 2026, the Secretary of Commerce is required to “publish an evaluation of existing State AI laws that identifies onerous laws that conflict” with EO 14365. (Id. at § 4). In creating this evaluation, the Secretary of Commerce is required to “identify laws that require AI models to alter their truthful outputs, or that may compel AI developers or deployers to disclose or report information that would violate the First Amendment or any other provision of the Constitution.” Id. This action appears to be in response to the Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (SB24-205).
While the name of this act is not mentioned explicitly in EO 14365, the order references “a new Colorado law banning ‘algorithmic discrimination’ [that] may even force AI models to produce false results in order to avoid a ‘differential treatment or impact’ on protected groups.” (Id. at § 1). However, there is no current pending action against this Colorado regulation as a result of EO 14365, and compliance with current laws is still required.
Funding
By no later than March 11, 2026, the Secretary of Commerce must send a Policy Notice to States identified as having onerous AI laws that the State is ineligible for funds under the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program. (Id. at § 5).
Within this same time period, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) is also required to determine whether to adopt a federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that preempt state laws and issue a policy statement on the application of the Federal Trade Commission Act’s prohibition on unfair and deceptive acts or practices under 15 U.S.C. 45 to AI models. (Id. at §§ 6, 7).
Legislation
The Special Advisor for AI and Crypto and the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology are required to jointly prepare a legislative recommendation establishing a uniform federal policy framework for AI that preempts state AI laws that conflict with EO 14365. (Id. at § 8). This recommendation, however, cannot preempt “otherwise lawful State AI laws relating to: (i) child safety protections; (ii) AI compute and data center infrastructure, other than generally applicable permitting reforms; (iii) State government procurement and use of AI; and (iv) other topics as shall be determined.” Id.
EO 14365 and the Future of AI Governance in the U.S.
Substantively, EO 14365 does not immediately affect any current state law or regulatory requirement related to AI. State laws related to AI remain in effect, and compliance with them is required.
Despite the platitudes articulated in EO 14365 about US “dominance” or “supremacy” in AI, it has a similar goal and end as EO 14110, signed by former President Joe Biden in 2023. Both executive orders seek to establish a federal regulatory scheme to govern the development and use of AI. EO 14365 delegates the review, analysis, and ultimately recommendation of a federal regulatory scheme to various departments as described above. Ultimately, the effects of EO 14365 are yet to be seen.
Legal Support for Businesses Using Artificial Intelligence
The emergence of AI presents many challenges and issues for businesses and individuals, especially given the lack of state or federal regulations. Businesses that plan to develop or implement AI should seek competent legal advice to ensure compliance with best practices in this ever-changing legal landscape. Fraser Stryker’s team of experienced artificial intelligence attorneys can assist with questions and guide you as you move forward with implementing AI in your business.
This article has been prepared for general information purposes and (1) does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship, (2) is not intended as a solicitation, (3) is not intended to convey or constitute legal advice, and (4) is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney. Always seek professional counsel prior to taking action.