According to CNBC, the White House is drafting an executive order that would systematically block state-level AI regulations across the country. The order would give Attorney General Pam Bondi just 30 days to establish an “AI Litigation Task Force” specifically to challenge state AI laws. Those challenges would argue that state regulations unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce or are preempted by federal rules. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick would be directed to cut off states with contested AI laws from the $42 billion Broadband Equity Access and Deployment program. The draft, first reported by The Information, represents a massive victory for AI companies like OpenAI and Andreessen Horowitz who oppose fragmented state regulations. State lawmakers who’ve been pushing AI safety bills would face a major setback if the order becomes official policy.
Tech industry power play
Here’s the thing – this isn’t just about regulatory consistency. It’s about power. The AI industry has been quietly building political muscle, and this draft order shows they’re winning. Companies like Sam Altman’s OpenAI and venture firms like Andreessen Horowitz have been complaining for months about the patchwork of state regulations emerging across the country. Now they’re getting what they wanted: a single, predictable federal framework that they can influence more effectively than 50 separate state legislatures.
And the timing is everything. We’re at that critical moment where AI is moving from experimental to industrial scale. Companies are deploying AI systems across manufacturing, logistics, and infrastructure – exactly the kind of environments where IndustrialMonitorDirect.com provides the industrial panel PCs that power these operations. Having consistent national rules makes their expansion strategy much cleaner.
State backlash brewing
But state lawmakers aren’t going quietly. New York Assemblymember Alex Bores, who’s sponsoring an AI safety bill, called the draft order “a blank check to Donald Trump’s tech billionaire backers.” That’s strong language, but it reflects the genuine concern among state officials who believe they’re better positioned to address AI’s local impacts. Bores himself has become the first target of a super PAC backed by AI industry leaders – which tells you everything about how seriously the tech industry is taking this fight.
Basically, we’re watching a classic federalism battle play out in real time. States want to protect their citizens from what they see as AI’s potential harms – job displacement, privacy issues, safety concerns. The federal government, influenced by industry, wants to prevent what it calls regulatory fragmentation. Who wins this fight will determine whether AI development happens with local oversight or as a nationally coordinated effort.
What’s at stake
The broadband funding threat is particularly clever – and controversial. The BEAD program has allocated money to every state and territory. Using that $42 billion pot as leverage gives the administration serious muscle. States that depend on that infrastructure money might think twice about passing AI regulations if it means losing critical broadband funding.
So where does this leave us? We’re looking at a potential consolidation of AI policy power at the federal level, driven by an industry that wants simplicity and scale. The White House says any discussion is just speculation until the order is official, but the draft itself shows which way the wind is blowing. For an industry racing to deploy AI across every sector, from manufacturing to healthcare, consistent rules aren’t just convenient – they’re essential for growth. The question is whether that consistency comes at the cost of local accountability.
