United States · Public sector policy
Executive Order 14365, Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence
Executive Order 14365 directs US agencies to challenge state AI laws and seek a federal standard. What it does, what it does not do and what it means for you.
Executive Order 14365, signed on 11 December 2025, sets a federal policy of a minimally burdensome national standard for AI and directs agencies to act against state AI laws that conflict with it. It created a Justice Department AI Litigation Task Force to challenge such laws, asked Commerce to list onerous state laws, tied some federal broadband funding to them, and called for legislation to preempt them. It does not itself repeal or preempt any state law, so state AI laws continue to apply unless a court or Congress says otherwise.
What it is
Executive Order 14365, Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence, was signed by President Trump on 11 December 2025 and published in the Federal Register on 16 December 2025. It states a policy of sustaining and enhancing US global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework, and it treats the growing body of state AI law as an obstacle to that.
It is an instruction to federal agencies, not a law that binds businesses. It sets deadlines for agency actions designed to challenge, discourage or eventually preempt state AI laws.
What it directs
- AI Litigation Task Force (section 3). Within 30 days the Attorney General establishes a task force whose sole responsibility is to challenge state AI laws inconsistent with the order’s policy.
- Evaluation of state AI laws (section 4). Within 90 days the Secretary of Commerce publishes an evaluation identifying onerous state AI laws that conflict with the policy and laws to refer to the task force. At a minimum it is to identify laws that require AI models to alter truthful outputs or that compel disclosures in a way that would violate the First Amendment.
- Funding (section 5). Within 90 days Commerce, through NTIA, issues a policy notice making states with onerous AI laws ineligible for non-deployment funds under the BEAD broadband programme, to the maximum extent federal law allows. Agencies also assess whether discretionary grants can be conditioned on states not enacting or enforcing conflicting AI laws.
- FCC (section 6). Within 90 days of the Commerce evaluation, the FCC Chairman starts a proceeding on whether to adopt a federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that preempts conflicting state laws.
- FTC (section 7). Within 90 days the FTC Chairman issues a policy statement on how the FTC Act’s prohibition on unfair and deceptive practices applies to AI models, including when state laws requiring changes to truthful outputs are preempted.
- Legislation (section 8). The Special Advisor for AI and Crypto and the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology prepare a legislative recommendation for a uniform federal framework that preempts conflicting state AI laws. It is not to propose preempting otherwise lawful state laws on child safety, AI compute and data centre infrastructure (other than generally applicable permitting reform), or state government procurement and use of AI.
What has happened since
The White House released its National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence on 20 March 2026. It is a set of legislative recommendations to Congress for a single federal standard that would preempt conflicting state laws, and it does not by itself create obligations. As of October 2026 Congress has not enacted a federal statute preempting state AI laws, and earlier attempts to attach a moratorium on state AI laws to federal legislation in 2025 failed.
State legislatures have kept legislating. Colorado SB 26-189 replaced the Colorado AI Act in May 2026, Connecticut enacted Public Act 26-15 on AI in employment, and frontier model laws now exist in California, New York and Illinois.
Key dates
- 11 December 2025. Order signed.
- 16 December 2025. Published in the Federal Register.
- 11 March 2026. Ninety-day deadline for the Commerce evaluation, the BEAD policy notice and the FTC policy statement.
- 20 March 2026. National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence released.
How it relates to other frameworks
The order is about who regulates AI, not how organisations should govern it. It leaves the state laws on this site in force, and it does not change federal agencies’ own obligations under OMB M-25-21. For an organisation operating across states, the practical consequence is uncertainty about which state rules will survive, not relief from them.
That makes a common backbone more valuable. The NIST AI RMF is the federal government’s own voluntary framework, Texas’s TRAIGA gives a defence to organisations whose testing substantially complies with it, and its risk, inventory and oversight practices map onto most state requirements. An organisation that governs to NIST or ISO/IEC 42001 and then reads each state law against that inventory is in a sound position whichever way the federal-state contest goes.
A note on this page
This is Aicura’s reading of Executive Order 14365. It is not legal advice and it is not the order itself. Read the text published in the Federal Register, and take advice on how federal and state AI rules apply to your organisation.
Last reviewed 18 October 2026. This page explains the framework to support your governance work. It is not legal advice; read the official source for the authoritative text.
Questions
Does Executive Order 14365 cancel state AI laws?
No. An executive order cannot repeal state law. It directs federal agencies to challenge state AI laws in court, to use funding conditions and federal rulemaking against them, and to prepare preemption legislation for Congress. State laws such as those in California, Colorado, Texas and Illinois continue to apply unless a court strikes them down or Congress enacts a preempting statute.
What is the AI Litigation Task Force?
A unit the order told the Attorney General to set up within 30 days, whose sole responsibility is to challenge state AI laws that conflict with the order's policy, including on the grounds that they unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce or are preempted by federal regulation.
Which state laws does the order leave alone?
Section 8 says the legislative recommendation should not propose preempting otherwise lawful state AI laws on child safety protections, AI compute and data centre infrastructure other than generally applicable permitting reforms, state government procurement and use of AI, and other topics to be determined.
Should organisations pause compliance work on state AI laws?
The order itself creates no new compliance duties and removes none. Organisations that pause work on a state law in the hope it will be struck down carry the risk if it is not. Building governance on a framework every regime recognises, such as the NIST AI RMF, keeps the work useful whichever way the federal-state contest goes.
Start with the AI you run
Every framework begins with knowing which AI systems and agents you have. The AI register is free to start.