Documents › Executive orders › 14365
Executive Order 14365
Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence
Signed December 11, 2025, printed at 90 FR 58499. 8 sections of substance, 1,490 words.
This order is about rules for AI. It says one set of national rules is best. It calls for a light rule book.
Sec. 1. Purpose
United States leadership in Artificial Intelligence (AI) will promote United States national and economic security and dominance across many domains. Pursuant to Executive Order 14179 of January 23, 2025 (Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence), I revoked my predecessor's attempt to paralyze this industry and directed my Administration to remove barriers to United States AI leadership. My Administration has already done tremendous work to advance that objective, including by updating existing Federal regulatory frameworks to remove barriers to and encourage adoption of AI applications across sectors. These efforts have already delivered tremendous benefits to the American people and led to trillions of dollars of investments across the country. But we remain in the earliest days of this technological revolution and are in a race with adversaries for
United States leadership in Artificial Intelligence (AI) will promote United States national and economic security and dominance across many domains. Pursuant to Executive Order 14179 of January 23, 2025 (Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence), I revoked my predecessor's attempt to paralyze this industry and directed my Administration to remove barriers to United States AI leadership. My Administration has already done tremendous work to advance that objective, including by updating existing Federal regulatory frameworks to remove barriers to and encourage adoption of AI applications across sectors. These efforts have already delivered tremendous benefits to the American people and led to trillions of dollars of investments across the country. But we remain in the earliest days of this technological revolution and are in a race with adversaries for
This states the case the order makes. It says leading in AI serves security here. It says it serves the economy too. It recalls a January order. That order undid the last administration's rules. It says agencies have since cut barriers. It claims trillions in new investment. It says the race with rivals is early yet.
Sec. 2. Policy
It is the policy of the United States to sustain and enhance the United States' global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI.
It is the policy of the United States to sustain and enhance the United States' global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI.
This sets the policy. One light national rule book is the goal. State rules should not weigh the field down.
Sec. 3. AI Litigation Task Force
Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall establish an AI Litigation Task Force (Task Force) whose sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws inconsistent with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order, including on grounds that such laws unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce, are preempted by existing Federal regulations, or are otherwise unlawful in the Attorney General's judgment, including, if appropriate, those laws identified pursuant to section 4 of this order. The Task Force shall consult from time to time with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, the Assistant [[Page 58500]] to the President for Science and Technology, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and the Assistant to the President and Counsel to the President regarding the emergence of specific State AI laws that warrant challenge.
Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall establish an AI Litigation Task Force (Task Force) whose sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws inconsistent with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order, including on grounds that such laws unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce, are preempted by existing Federal regulations, or are otherwise unlawful in the Attorney General's judgment, including, if appropriate, those laws identified pursuant to section 4 of this order. The Task Force shall consult from time to time with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, the Assistant [[Page 58500]] to the President for Science and Technology, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and the Assistant to the President and Counsel to the President regarding the emergence of specific State AI laws that warrant challenge.
This creates a litigation task force. Justice has 30 days. Its only job is to fight state AI laws. The target is laws that clash with this policy. One ground is that they burden trade between states. Another is that federal rules already cover the field. The Attorney General may find other grounds. Four White House aides are consulted.
Sec. 4. Evaluation of State AI Laws
Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, consistent with the Secretary's authorities under 47 U.S.C. 902(b), shall, in consultation with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and the Assistant to the President and Counsel to the President, publish an evaluation of existing State AI laws that identifies onerous laws that conflict with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order, as well as laws that should be referred to the Task Force established pursuant to section 3 of this order. That evaluation of State AI laws shall, at a minimum, identify laws that require AI models to alter their truthful outputs, or that may compel AI developers or deployers to disclose or report information in a manner that would violate the First Amendment or any other
Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, consistent with the Secretary's authorities under 47 U.S.C. 902(b), shall, in consultation with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and the Assistant to the President and Counsel to the President, publish an evaluation of existing State AI laws that identifies onerous laws that conflict with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order, as well as laws that should be referred to the Task Force established pursuant to section 3 of this order. That evaluation of State AI laws shall, at a minimum, identify laws that require AI models to alter their truthful outputs, or that may compel AI developers or deployers to disclose or report information in a manner that would violate the First Amendment or any other
This reviews state AI laws. Commerce has 90 days. Four White House aides are consulted. It must publish its findings. It must name laws that clash with this policy. It must flag which ones to refer for suit. Laws that force models to change true output are named. So are laws forcing disclosures that may breach free speech.
Sec. 5. Restrictions on State Funding
(a) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, through the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, shall issue a Policy Notice specifying the conditions under which States may be eligible for remaining funding under the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program that was saved through my Administration's ``Benefit of the Bargain'' reforms, consistent with 47 U.S.C. 1702(e)-(f). That Policy Notice must provide that States with onerous AI laws identified pursuant to section 4 of this order are ineligible for non- deployment funds, to the maximum extent allowed by Federal law. The Policy Notice must also describe how a fragmented State regulatory landscape for AI threatens to undermine BEAD-funded deployments, the growth of AI applications reliant on high-speed networks, and BEAD's mission of delivering universal, high-speed
(a) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, through the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, shall issue a Policy Notice specifying the conditions under which States may be eligible for remaining funding under the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program that was saved through my Administration's ``Benefit of the Bargain'' reforms, consistent with 47 U.S.C. 1702(e)-(f). That Policy Notice must provide that States with onerous AI laws identified pursuant to section 4 of this order are ineligible for non- deployment funds, to the maximum extent allowed by Federal law. The Policy Notice must also describe how a fragmented State regulatory landscape for AI threatens to undermine BEAD-funded deployments, the growth of AI applications reliant on high-speed networks, and BEAD's mission of delivering universal, high-speed
This ties broadband money to AI rules. Commerce has 90 days to issue a notice. A communications office writes it. It sets who may still get broadband funds. States with heavy AI laws lose part of that money. The earlier review names those states. The notice must also explain the harm from a patchwork of state rules.
Sec. 6. Federal Reporting and Disclosure Standard
Within 90 days of the publication of the identification specified in section 4 of this order, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission shall, in consultation with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, initiate a proceeding to determine whether to adopt a Federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that preempts conflicting State laws.
Within 90 days of the publication of the identification specified in section 4 of this order, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission shall, in consultation with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, initiate a proceeding to determine whether to adopt a Federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that preempts conflicting State laws.
This may set one federal rule. An earlier section names problem state laws. Ninety days after that list is published, the broadcast agency must act. An AI adviser is consulted. It must open a proceeding. The question is whether to set one federal reporting standard for AI models. That standard would override state laws.
Sec. 7. Preemption of State Laws Mandating Deceptive Conduct in AI Models
Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission shall, in consultation with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, 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. That policy statement must explain the circumstances under which State laws that require alterations to the truthful outputs of AI models are preempted by the Federal Trade Commission Act's prohibition on engaging in deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce. [[Page 58501]]
Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission shall, in consultation with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, 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. That policy statement must explain the circumstances under which State laws that require alterations to the truthful outputs of AI models are preempted by the Federal Trade Commission Act's prohibition on engaging in deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce. [[Page 58501]]
This targets state laws on model output. The trade commission chair has 90 days. An AI adviser is consulted. It must issue a policy statement. The subject is the ban on deceptive practices. A trade law sets that ban. The statement must say when state laws are overridden. Laws forcing changes to true output are the target.
Sec. 8. Legislation
(a) The Special Advisor for AI and Crypto and the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology shall jointly prepare a legislative recommendation establishing a uniform Federal policy framework for AI that preempts State AI laws that conflict with the policy set forth in this order. (b) The legislative recommendation called for in subsection (a) of this section shall not propose preempting 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.
(a) The Special Advisor for AI and Crypto and the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology shall jointly prepare a legislative recommendation establishing a uniform Federal policy framework for AI that preempts State AI laws that conflict with the policy set forth in this order. (b) The legislative recommendation called for in subsection (a) of this section shall not propose preempting 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.
This asks for a bill. Two White House aides must draft the recommendation. It would set one federal AI policy. State laws that clash would be overridden. Some state laws must be left alone. Child safety rules are one. Rules on computing and data centers are another. So are rules on state purchases of AI. More may be named.
Sec. 9. General Provisions
Every order carries this. It is not what the order does.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. (d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Commerce. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> (Presidential Sig.) THE WHITE HOUSE, December 11, 2025. [FR Doc.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. (d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Commerce. <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT> (Presidential Sig.) THE WHITE HOUSE, December 11, 2025. [FR Doc.
This is the closing clause that nearly every order carries. It says the order does not change what the law already allows. It also says no one can sue to enforce it.
How this order is quoted
Each section is quoted as the order prints it, under its own number and heading. Executive orders are United States government works and are not under copyright. Long sections are cut at a sentence and the whole order is a click away.