<\/p>\n
President Donald Trump\u2019s recent executive order aims to centralise AI regulation at the federal level, prompting fierce opposition from Hollywood and raising concerns over creativity, jobs, and legal authority in the rapidly evolving AI landscape.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
President Donald Trump\u2019s December 11 executive order seeks to pre-empt state-level artificial intelligence rules by establishing a single national policy and directing the attorney general to lead legal challenges against conflicting state laws. According to the original report, the White House framed the move as necessary to preserve U.S. competitiveness in AI and to avoid the burden of 50 different regulatory regimes. [1]<\/a><\/sup>[2]<\/a><\/sup>[3]<\/a><\/sup>[4]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n The order instructs the Attorney General to create an AI Litigation Task Force to identify and challenge state statutes and asks the Secretary of Commerce to review state laws that clash with federal priorities. The administration says the measures are designed to sustain American technological leadership and streamline compliance for companies operating nationally. [2]<\/a><\/sup>[3]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Beyond litigation, the executive order includes mechanisms intended to pressure recalcitrant states: the administration may withhold federal funds, including certain broadband grants, from jurisdictions that adopt specified AI restrictions. Civil liberties groups and several state leaders have warned this could centralise power in Washington and in major tech platforms. [3]<\/a><\/sup>[4]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Hollywood reacted swiftly and angrily, framing the dispute less as an interstate regulatory quarrel and more as a fight over livelihoods and creative rights. Industry figures and unions say unchecked or permissive AI policies risk job losses, unauthorised copying of performances, and the erosion of the human artistry that audiences value. According to the original report, unions have emphasised that synthetic performers trained on the work of real actors threaten compensation and control over likenesses. [1]<\/a><\/sup>[5]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n The flashpoint has been the appearance of an AI-generated performer known as Tilly Norwood, created by Particle6 Productions and reported to have been in talks for representation by a real talent agency. The synthetic actress went viral and prompted a formal condemnation from SAG\u2011AFTRA, which said Tilly Norwood “is not an actor but a character generated by a computer program trained on the work of countless professional performers without permission or compensation.” The union warned that replacing human performers with synthetics would jeopardise livelihoods and devalue human creativity. [1]<\/a><\/sup>[5]<\/a><\/sup>[6]<\/a><\/sup>[7]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Prominent performers joined the outcry. According to the original report, Jameela Jamil described the idea as “deeply disturbing” and Mara Wilson questioned why casting real young women could not be prioritised. The report quoted Morgan Freeman as giving a blunt assessment, saying “nobody likes” Tilly Norwood because she\u2019s “not real.” Those comments underline the cultural resistance facing AI-generated talent inside the industry. [1]<\/a><\/sup>[6]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Legal and political battles look set to follow. State officials and advocates for stronger local regulation argue that decentralised rules are necessary to protect workers, privacy and civil rights; the federal order, by contrast, treats a uniform regulatory floor as essential to national economic strategy. Industry data and legal scholars note this dispute will likely be resolved in the courts, where questions about federal pre-emption, states\u2019 police powers and First Amendment or commerce\u2011clause limits will be litigated. [3]<\/a><\/sup>[4]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n The executive order opens a new front in the wider contest over how generative AI is governed: federal policymakers emphasise competitiveness and scale, while creative communities demand enforceable protections for artists and performers. The outcome will shape whether AI is integrated under a single national framework or remains subject to a patchwork of state rules that reflect local social, labour and privacy priorities. [1]<\/a><\/sup>[2]<\/a><\/sup>[4]<\/a><\/sup>[5]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n ##Reference Map:<\/p>\n\ud83d\udccc Reference Map:<\/h3>\n
\n