What the New White House AI Executive Order Means for U.S. Companies
Want to share this?
And Why AI Governance Cannot Wait
In a significant development with nationwide implications, the White House has issued a new executive order to mitigate the growing influence of state-level regulations on artificial intelligence. According to a new article published by the IAPP, U.S. President Donald Trump signed the order on December 11, directing federal agencies to challenge and potentially halt the enforcement of state AI statutes deemed burdensome or unconstitutional.
This marks the most direct federal intervention yet in the rapidly expanding patchwork of state AI laws. For organizations navigating AI privacy, risk, and compliance, the order introduces both opportunity and uncertainty. While the federal government aims to streamline AI rulemaking, the order has raised serious legal questions and does not resolve the underlying need for strong internal AI governance.
Companies cannot wait for clarity. They are already accountable for their use of AI.
What the Executive Order Actually Does
The DOJ will now challenge state AI laws in court
The order directs the Attorney General to establish an AI Litigation Task Force to challenge state AI and digital laws on constitutional grounds. The task force will evaluate whether particular statutes compel model disclosures, restrict truthful AI outputs, or impede interstate commerce. Within 90 days, the Department of Commerce will provide analysis and referrals to help determine which state laws should be prioritized for review.
Federal agencies will explore national AI standards
The FCC and FTC have been directed to advance federal guardrails.
- The FCC will evaluate whether national AI reporting and disclosure standards should preempt conflicting state requirements.
- The FTC will issue a policy statement explaining how the FTC Act preempts state deception statutes as applied to AI.
These steps introduce potential alignment at the federal level, but they also raise questions about agency authority. Experts cited in the IAPP report noted concerns about whether the FCC has any statutory basis to enforce such preemption, creating additional uncertainty about the outcome.
States may face funding implications
A new policy statement will detail how states’ eligibility for federal programs, including Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment funding, may be impacted if they maintain AI laws the administration deems onerous.
Federal preemption is not absolute
The order includes new language affirming that states may continue regulating certain areas, such as children’s online safety and state government procurement and use of AI. This preserves some state authority.
Why This Does Not Actually Solve the AI Governance Problem for Companies
Many organizations might assume that if federal agencies move to preempt state laws, the urgency around AI governance decreases. The opposite is true.
Legal uncertainty is expanding, not shrinking
Experts quoted in the IAPP report warned that the process outlined in the executive order could create more confusion than clarity. Travis Hall from the Center for Democracy and Technology noted that the determination process is likely to be influenced by political considerations and may increase regulatory unpredictability rather than reduce it.
Uncertainty does not reduce risk. It increases the need for organizations to document controls, assess vendors, and implement internal governance.
Litigation may rise during the transition
The DOJ may selectively challenge state laws or specific provisions. Courts may pause enforcement in some states but not others. State attorneys general may decline to enforce laws during litigation or may continue enforcement until courts intervene.
This creates a scenario in which companies could be:
- Required to comply with some state AI laws
- Temporarily exempt from others
- Operating in legal gray zones where enforcement is uncertain
A fragmented landscape still requires strong internal oversight, especially for organizations that process sensitive data and respond to AI privacy incidents.
Why AI Governance Still Matters Even If Federal Preemption Expands
Vendors are already embedding AI into critical systems
Many organizations rely on tools with hidden or rapidly evolving AI features. This increases exposure and requires updated vendor risk assessment tools and processes.
AI privacy incidents can occur even without a law in place
AI-produced outputs that are biased, incorrect, or harmful create privacy and security risks that fall under existing laws like the FTC Act, state consumer protection laws, sector-specific mandates, and contractual obligations.
Organizations should have systems in place, including:
- Automated breach detection and notification
- Privacy incident management software
- HIPAA incident response tools for healthcare environments
- Software for privacy analysts to evaluate AI-related failures
Boards now expect proactive governance
Directors increasingly ask where AI is used, which vendors leverage AI, what oversight mechanisms exist, and how incidents will be managed. AI privacy and security are becoming material risks requiring structured documentation, regular assessment, and mature operational practices.
Public trust and reputational risk move faster than regulation
Consumers do not wait for Congress to react. Inaccurate AI outputs, harmful content, or unsupported AI claims can quickly erode trust. Companies must demonstrate responsible AI practices regardless of when regulations take effect.
What Companies Should Do Now
Federal uncertainty does not change the fundamentals. Every organization adopting AI should begin building a scalable AI governance program that aligns with risk, not legislation.
1. Inventory all AI use
Identify AI embedded in third-party platforms and shine a light on shadow AI used by employees. You cannot govern what you cannot see.
2. Strengthen vendor governance
Update procurement and third-party assessments to include AI-specific disclosures. Use structured vendor risk assessment tools to evaluate AI use, data flows, and model behavior.
3. Assess risks with repeatable frameworks
Adopt privacy risk assessment tools and criteria to categorize AI systems as high- or low-risk and understand accepted risks.
4. Establish cross-functional AI governance
Bring together privacy, legal, security, risk, compliance, engineering, procurement, and product teams to form an enterprise AI governance council.
5. Prepare for AI privacy incidents
Ensure you have:
- Privacy management solutions
- Privacy software for compliance officers
- Privacy incident management software
- Automated breach detection and notification capabilities
These tools help teams respond quickly when AI outputs or vendor systems cause harm or expose data.
6. Train employees on responsible use
Most AI misuse is accidental. Training reduces unintentional exposure.
7. Monitor federal and state developments continuously
Preemption efforts may take months or years to resolve. Companies should assume divergence, not harmony, in the short term.
Conclusion: Federal Preemption Does Not Replace AI Governance
The new executive order signals the federal government’s desire to shape national AI policy. But it does not eliminate state activity, legal ambiguity, or organizational responsibility.
Between the DOJ task force, FCC, and FTC initiatives, state-level commitments, and evolving vendor technologies, companies are already accountable for how they use AI. They must put governance processes in place long before Congress passes a comprehensive federal AI law.
Organizations that take action now will reduce risk, improve trust, and position themselves for compliance regardless of how the regulatory landscape evolves.