Trump Signs Executive Order For Single National AI Regulation Framework, Limiting Power of States
- Reference: 0180365201
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/12/11/2352215/trump-signs-executive-order-for-single-national-ai-regulation-framework-limiting-power-of-states
- Source link:
Developing...
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/11/trump-signs-executive-order-for-single-national-ai-regulation-framework.html
Okay. (Score:2)
What's his cut this time?
Re:Okay. (Score:4, Insightful)
States can block pornhub but they can't do anything about AI? Yep. That makes perfect sense to me.
Re:Okay. (Score:5, Informative)
> but they can't do anything about AI?
They can. There's no order Trump can sign to stop them legally- which is why that's not what he did. The headline makes it seem like that, but it didn't.
What it does is much more insidious. It orders the Government to engage in lawfare and withholding of whatever funds are considered legal to withhold to any state that doesn't follow the Executive policy on AI.
i.e., he can't legally order them to stop "doing something about AI", but he can take their money away until they decide it's not worth it anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
With one important difference, this reminds me of the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act, which established a national speed limit of 55 MPH. States had to either adopt a state speed limit of 55 MPH, or else lose out on funding, i.e. get punished.
Of course, that was a law enacted by Congress, not an Executive order. I guess, traditionally, they say that for first quarter millennium of America, Congress held the purse strings because some inky piece of paper said they were supposed to , as if Cong
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love it if states, non-profits, corps, everyone, would wean themselves off of federal funding. It just opens the door for a douche bag president (or congress) to control what they can do.
Inb4 (Score:2)
Inb4 states sign new laws to override federal laws. What is this statehood thing again?
Re: (Score:2)
> Inb4 states sign new laws to override federal laws. What is this statehood thing again?
This isn't Federal law. I know the legalese in the subject and summary can be hard to understand to the untrained eye, but you can tell it's not a Federal law, because it doesn't say that fuckface signed a "law" into effect; it says fuckface signed an "executive order", which is another way of saying "not a federal law"
Re: (Score:2)
That actually brings up a good point that I didn't notice, executive order. If this is allowed to dictate state business, then the next democrat president could follow the same steps with executive orders making the states do whatever is demanded. I can't wait for this bad dream to be over.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for every comment about "next democrat president could follow the same steps with executive orders", the problem is the current supreme court will allow Trump (and probably any other Republican president) to do whatever they want, and they will have no problem reversing course if a democrat president tries to do anything - in that case it'll be called overreach, etc.
Probably gonna be a lawsuit (Score:3)
A state with an existing law will get sued or will sue the Feds to override this and I think that's fair, my gut tells me without legislation an EO is pretty toothless here.
Of course if Trump was a competent President or cared about the job that's what he'd be doing but alas, he gets to have another signing ceremony where an aide has to explain to our definitely not demented leader what he is signing like he's seeing it for the first time.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing to override.
What this EO does is direct the Federal Government to leverage its power in whatever ways it can (suing for whatever they can find, withholding funds, etc) if the State does not follow the Government's wishes.
It's basically the shit he's been doing with universities.
Since the order doesn't try to set some kind of regulatory rule- and just directs the Federal Government to... mmmmh, harass within the bounds of the law... I'd say it's got plenty of teeth.
I would say, "That's an intere
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I guess when you look at it that way then yeah it's got as much teeth as the governor is willing to give him. These are state governments so they have a lot more tools and leverage than a University does. Let's not forget the law firms too, god it's been a long year.
The usual suspects, Newsom, Pritzker, Hochul will ignore and Desantis and others will play along.
Then again he's already threatening to strip Federal funds from blood-red Indiana because of the voted down redistricting so maybe he's up fo
Gotta stop the states (Score:3)
Big opportunity for grift here, but not if the states are allowed to regulate it. Now it's one-stop shopping for any bribing that needs to happen for China to get access to OpenAI or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking today... that after next November, and the Democrats take back the House, that there will be a non-stop series of impeachments over all sorts of things, but I suspect Bribery will be prominent. Of course the Senate will acquit, but it will be a popcorn period of time watching a great soap opera.
Re: (Score:1)
Impeachments are necessary and well-deserved, but the Democrats have way too many corporatists and centrists to do anything useful like that.
Instead we'll get useless plaudits about 'healing' and a little real legislation to fix some of the crap that's happening now.
Meanwhile the Republicans will be plotting how they can be even more racist and more anti-democratic the next time they get into power.
Re:Gotta stop the states (Score:4, Interesting)
More racist, and anti-democratic.... I talked to a MAGA the other day, and I was truly surprised at how much he bought into the propaganda. The point of it all does seem to be racism and power, but he is clueless about that because MAGAs repeat talking points that kind of seem reasonable. The whole point of the policies, boiled down, is to make America white, and absolute power. I am white and I already feel some fear at voting next year, I just know there will be masked MAGA police answerable only to Trump asking for my papers before I am allowed to vote.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bit up the voters, more so in 2028 than '26 but there should be a wider spread of candidates and that will be an issue.
Pretty sure some Senators and Congresspeople have talked about it and Newsom has mentioned it and the 2028 Democrat primary is going to be wild and I expect at least a few candidates to run on the out-for-blood message and if it's got support then who knows. Republican's had the "nice guy" in Biden, he was by the book in regards to the DOJ and look where that got all of us. Next
Re: (Score:2)
Impeachments are meaningless theatre unless you have the voted in the Senate to convict.
The goddamn Democrats probably will do things like that, because they love theatre, but I would much much rather that they did something useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Indictments would be better. If you can't go after the VERY top, go after their family and associates. Get parasites like the Kushners tied up in lawsuits and criminal charges for years.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a possibility, that the lifelong Politicians may finally grow a conscience, and look at evidence, and convict Trump. They were ready to do that with Nixon before he resigned.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to get them 67 Senators and getting even close to 60 seems impossible, particularly in '26 which is not a great map. In a better world there should be 10-20 Republicans who have spines and principles and a sense of duty but alas.
Usually you go with a process like that to "get everyone on the record" for the public to see but it is theatre because we all already know they're worthless. If they wouldn't do it after Jan 6 they ain't gonna do it now.
Regulatory agencies gutted (Score:4, Insightful)
Didnt SCOTUS just gut regulatory agencies from doing things like this? Doesnt Congress have to pass laws for the agencies to implement? Or is that just anything the Dema wanted to regulate?
EOs like this shouldnt be worth the price of the paper they are written on
Re: (Score:1)
> EOs like this shouldnt be worth the price of the paper they are written on
Especially those signed in crayon.
Re: (Score:1)
Trump also uses an auto-pen, he's a hypocrite.
Re: (Score:2)
> EOs like this shouldnt be worth the price of the paper they are written on
Common misconception about EOs going on here, I think.
You can't write an EO that declares State law null and void. That's not a power that the President has.
You write an EO to direct the Executive departments to do something.
In this case, he has ordered the relevant agencies to engage in lawfare and grant withholding to people who don't cowtow to the will expressed in the EO.
I.e., he's avoid setting a regulatory rule. Instead he's setting up a taskforce that tries to pummel the State into submission b
Re: (Score:2)
It's PR and fodder for the fan club. It's plainly illegal, and yet another slide into corruption as the AI movement loots treasuries and pockets, while producing nothing but high-wattage goo.
Re: (Score:2)
> It's PR and fodder for the fan club. It's plainly illegal
It's almost certainly legal.
On what grounds do you think it's illegal?
> and yet another slide into corruption as the AI movement loots treasuries and pockets, while producing nothing but high-wattage goo.
Oh- you're a doomsday preacher on the corner of Hollywood and Vine- got it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, we disagree. Read the 10th Amendment. We can add the Commerce Clause, and add a side dash of grab-and-go (read your law books).
Thanks otherwise for the kind and thoughtful words; I know they took a lot of effort.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm quite familiar with the 10th Amendment.
It is at this point that I point out that you have not read the order.
Do you know how I know you didn't read the order? Because nothing in it contravenes the 10th Amendment.
Any time someone challenges you after you've done nothing but read a headline, the first thing you should do is actually try to learn about the topic you're diving into an argument on.
The order does not take any power from the States. It doesn't even assign any kind of new power to the Ex
Re: (Score:3)
Right.
It takes both money and asserts power and control against states specifically. The compliance policy, the nanosecond it's enforced, breaches the 10th. The conspiracy to breach the 10th would be mooted.
And yes, it's mob boss shit. And what he's done to universities also breaches numerous US Constitutional Amendments, but because universities are at the nipple of federal dollars, they dare not move. This is the universities' problem, the subservience and fealty to new royalty. That they don't litigate e
Re: (Score:2)
> It takes both money and asserts power and control against states specifically. The compliance policy, the nanosecond it's enforced, breaches the 10th. The conspiracy to breach the 10th would be mooted.
lol.
no.
Fucking hilarious.
Re: Regulatory agencies gutted (Score:1)
What if you bought AI stock?
did he use an auto pen on this? (Score:2)
did he use an auto pen on this?
Re: (Score:2)
I think that Trump likes using a Sharpie. Which means that the next sitting Democrat president will probably decide that anything signed with a Sharpie isn't a "legal" signature and declare them all null and void.
Which would be cool if that meant that Congress goes back to being the institution where new US laws are made, but I fear that ship has sailed. The president is set now, all future US presidents will get to be mini dictators if they want to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's wait for some precedent or at least a strong hint of inclination before we assume that future Dem presidents will also take the wannabe-dictator path from now on. While all future US presidents will have the opportunity to be mini-dictators until some much-needed guardrails are added, so far only one party (and in fact only one man) has taken it.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I think every president at least since Eisenhower has gone beyond the written job description. I.e. used the executive branch to push things that Congress didn't authorize. It could quite plausibly be true even further back, perhaps back as far as G. Washington. Lincoln definitely did so, and so did FDR, but I don't know enough history to say that they all did.
Re: (Score:2)
MAGAs are convinced by repeated lies that Biden did everything that Trump did. Their reflex on everything is that Biden did it. When you ask what evidence there is, they say the mainstream media didn't report it. So, that is a thread in authoritarian doublespeak, just say that someone else did it, make it up, lie about it, then do it.
Executive Orders do not over-ride states. (Score:2)
The executive Branch executes the laws the Legislative Branch votes into power. The president has no power to make laws except as granted by Congress.
Congress has granted the executive branch a bunch of power, AI is new and Congress has not granted the President much powers over it.
Whether the current Supreme Court will obey the intention of the Constitution or Congress is another issue.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a misleading headline.
The order doesn't try to "override States laws" (I said the same as you- "uhhh, that's not a Power the president has to put in the form of an order.")
What it does, is order Federal departments to throw every bit of power they have at the State if it does not play ball (Sue them for any and all things you can find to sue them for, withhold grants, etc.)
Since nobody has managed to stop him from doing this to universities, I do not suspect they're going to be able to stop him fr
That's nice (Score:2)
His executive order is functionally a no op, because it means nothing. Congress alone can do this, and his order is simply directing how executive agencies should act. Ironically because Chevron was overturned, courts can flat out ignore whatever an executive branch regulatory agency says. So if someone sues a state, and they try to reference whatever rule implemented by an agency this is created in response to this EO, the court can flat out laugh it away anyhow.
Re: (Score:2)
It's far from a no-op.
You misunderstood the point of the EO.
They're not going to sue the State because the AI law contradicts the policy set forth within the order, they're going to sue the AI law for being unconstitutional, written on ugly paper, or whatever they can find.
Then they're going to start withholding Federal funds from the State.
[1]You can read the actual order, here. [cnbc.com]
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/20/trump-ai-executive-order-state-funding.html
Re: (Score:1)
I'll be surprised if I find out EOs have any authority outside the executive branch of the federal government. Otherwise a presnit could just unilaterally ban abortion, change federal, state, and locals laws and tax rates, disband Congress...
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct- the order has no authority outside of the Federal Government.
Within the Federal Government, it has the effect of setting up a goon squad to track down any reason they can find to sue and take money away from States that don't comply.
He has no authority to preempt State law, only Congress does.
But as he has demonstrated with his university funding antics- he doesn't really need the authority.
His newly granted power of the guy who distributes the purpose is authority enough for just abou
Re: (Score:2)
*distributes the purse
When the states... (Score:2)
Write their own regulations on this. They should each and every one include a single finger salute as part of the title.
Was the headline generated by AI? (Score:2)
The initial comment about preemption is, sort of in the article, but not in the way a human would ever understand to mean. "The Trump administration, with the aid of AI and crypto czar David Sacks, has been pursuing a path that would allow federal rules to preempt state regulations on AI,"
The way the summary is written makes me think AI wrote it. It shows a clear lack of understanding. Not that the article is much better written. It doesn't seem to understand the supremacy clause or the way the power of the
Re: (Score:2)
Preemption doesn't even apply.
The order also does nothing of the sort.
It just threatens Federal retribution wherever the Federal Government can can find the means if the State doesn't follow the policy.
It's pretty clever, really. There's no way for a state to fight the order. The order is just a direction to the government to find things to harass the State for.
Fixed the headline for ya (Score:2)
Trump Signs Executive Order For Single National AI Regulation Framework, in an impotent attempt at Limiting the Power of States
It took almost nothing (Score:2)
For Republican voters to piss away the Constitution and states' rights. Just one fat orange turd who said nasty things and got away with it and they would burn everything in the country down.
It really shows a complete lack of any principles on the part of Republican voters. That's the problem with the right wing they have a hierarchy not a belief system let alone principles.
States Rights (Score:2)
I remember arguing with someone that the "States Rights" mantra was just a mask for racism and the ability to shit on minorities by southern states. He made vast arguments about the power of a federation and states abilities to try different things and learn from each other. Statements that even at the time were bullshit and we both knew it (sitting in Austin, working for tech companies that were only there to escape taxes).
Well, now that racism is federally mandated, they're still doing away with states ri
States rights? (Score:2)
Bahahahahaha America is eating itself. Vote in a fascist, get fascist shit.
TL;DR: Gotta keep the bubble going (Score:2)
Can't have states getting in the way
Re: (Score:3)
It's interstate commerce, it belongs to the Federal government.
Re: (Score:1)
> it belongs to the Federal government.
Yeah, congress. Unfortunately we (the collective) filled it with sycophants