President Donald Trump has signed an executive order seeking to centralise AI regulation in the US, prompting legal battles over states’ rights and the future of AI oversight amid industry backing for federal standards.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on 11 December 2025 that seeks to prevent individual US states from adopting their own rules for artificial intelligence, arguing a patchwork of laws would hobble American firms in the international race to dominate AI. According to the original report, Trump told officials in the Oval Office “there’s only going to be one winner”, saying China’s centralised approvals gave its companies an advantage. [1][2][4]
The order directs the Attorney General to form a new task force empowered to challenge state legislation, and instructs the Commerce Department to compile a list of state laws it deems problematic. It also flags the possibility of withholding federal grant funding , including from a broadband deployment programme , from states that fail to fall into line. The White House framed the move as creating a single federal approval system to promote investment and innovation. [1][2][3][4]
Administration advisers, including venture capitalist David Sacks who is leading the policies on cryptocurrency and AI, told reporters the federal push would target “the most onerous examples of state regulation” and would not oppose measures described as “kid safety” protections. Industry players such as OpenAI, Google and Meta have publicly backed a federal role in AI oversight, arguing that uniform rules reduce compliance costs and encourage national competitiveness. [1][2][3][4]
Several states have already acted. Industry data show Colorado, California, Utah and Texas have passed laws setting some rules for private-sector uses of AI , measures that limit collection of certain personal data, mandate greater transparency, and require risk assessments for discriminatory outcomes. Other state-level initiatives have targeted specific harms such as deepfakes in elections and non-consensual explicit imagery, and placed limits on governmental use of AI. State officials have argued those local rules respond to real harms while Congress has so far failed to pass a comprehensive federal framework. [1][2][3][5]
Legal scholars and civil liberties groups warn the administration’s tactic , directing the Justice Department to sue states and threatening financial penalties , will face substantial constitutional challenges. The Constitution generally permits states broad authority to legislate on matters not expressly pre-empted by federal law, and critics say the order risks undermining state efforts to protect consumers and civil rights. Representative Don Beyer and others have said the move could violate states’ rights under the Tenth Amendment. The White House says it will also work with Congress to codify a national standard. [6][3]
Supporters of the order argue a unified national approach is necessary to avoid costly, inconsistent approvals that could deter investment and cede advantage to geopolitical rivals. Opponents counter that a federal-first posture would remove local accountability and potentially leave important protections to the discretion of industry-aligned federal appointees. As the administration begins to identify target laws and pursue litigation, the dispute sets up a likely prolonged legal and political battle over who , the federal government or the states , will write the rules for powerful, fast-moving AI systems. [2][3][6]
📌 Reference Map:
##Reference Map:
- [1] (The Independent) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 4
- [2] (AP News) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 4, Paragraph 6
- [3] (Reuters) – Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 4, Paragraph 5, Paragraph 6
- [4] (The Guardian) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3
- [5] (Washington Post , business) – Paragraph 4
- [6] (Washington Post , technology) – Paragraph 5, Paragraph 6
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative is fresh, with the executive order signed on 11 December 2025. Multiple reputable outlets, including AP News ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/9cb4dd1bc249e404260b3dc233217388?utm_source=openai)) and Reuters ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-says-he-will-sign-order-curbing-state-ai-laws-2025-12-11/?utm_source=openai)), have reported on this event, confirming its recent occurrence.
Quotes check
Score:
10
Notes:
Direct quotes from President Trump and other officials are consistent across multiple sources, indicating originality and no signs of recycled content. For instance, Trump’s statement in the Oval Office about the need for a unified approach to AI regulation is reported similarly by AP News ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/9cb4dd1bc249e404260b3dc233217388?utm_source=openai)) and Reuters ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-says-he-will-sign-order-curbing-state-ai-laws-2025-12-11/?utm_source=openai)).
Source reliability
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative originates from The Independent, a reputable UK-based news outlet. The Associated Press and Reuters, both known for their journalistic standards, have also covered the event, lending further credibility to the information.
Plausability check
Score:
10
Notes:
The claims made in the narrative are plausible and align with recent developments in AI regulation. The executive order’s content and the reactions from various stakeholders are consistent with reports from multiple reputable sources, including Reuters ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-says-he-will-sign-order-curbing-state-ai-laws-2025-12-11/?utm_source=openai)) and AP News ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/9cb4dd1bc249e404260b3dc233217388?utm_source=openai)).
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative is fresh, with consistent and original quotes from reliable sources. The event described is plausible and corroborated by multiple reputable outlets, indicating a high level of credibility.
Supercharge Your Content Strategy
Feel free to test this content on your social media sites to see whether it works for your community.
