The ink was barely dry on Donald Trump’s artificial intelligence executive order when Gavin Newsom came out swinging. Just hours after the order went public Thursday evening, the California governor issued a statement saying the presidential dictum, which seeks to block states from regulating AI of their own accord, advances “grift and corruption” instead of innovation.
“President Trump and David Sacks aren’t making policy – they’re running a con,” Newsom said, referencing Trump’s AI adviser and crypto “czar”. “Every day, they push the limits to see how far they can take it.”
Trump’s executive order is a major victory for tech companies that have campaigned against legislative barriers to developing and deploying their AI products. It also sets up a clash between state governments and the White House over the future of AI regulation. The immediate backlash from groups including child safety organizations, unions and state officials has highlighted the deeply contentious nature of the order and diverse range of interests it affects.
Several officials and organizations have already questioned the legality of the executive order, stating that Trump does not have the power to undermine state legislation on AI and denouncing the decree as the result of tech industry lobbying. California, home to some of the world’s most prominent AI companies and one of the most active states legislating AI, has been a locus for pushback against the order.
“This executive order is deeply misguided, wildly corrupt, and will actually hinder innovation and weaken public trust in the long run,” California Democratic representative Sara Jacobs said in a statement. “We will explore all avenues – from the courts to Congress – to reverse this decision.”
After a draft version of Trump’s order leaked in November, state attorney general Rob Bonta said that his office would “take steps to examine the legality or potential illegality of such an executive order”, teeing up a precedent-setting duel between California and the White House.
Legislative loggerheads
In September, Newsom signed a landmark AI law that would compel developers of large, powerful AI models known as “frontier models” to provide transparency reports and promptly report safety incidents or face fines up to $1m. The governor touted the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence act as an example for how to regulate AI companies nationwide.
“Our state’s status as a global leader in technology allows us a unique opportunity to provide a blueprint for well-balanced AI policies beyond our borders,” Newsom said in an address to the California state senate. “Especially in the absence of a comprehensive federal AI policy framework and national AI safety standards.”
The September bill and more California legislation could be in Trump’s crosshairs. Thursday’s executive order calls for an AI litigation taskforce that would review state laws that do not “enhance the United States’ global AI dominance” and then pursue legal action or potentially withhold federal broadband funding. The taskforce will also consult with the administration’s AI and crypto “czar” to determine which laws to target.
Although Trump has framed the executive order as a means of streamlining legislation and removing onerously patchwork regulation, critics have alleged that the government has never provided any comprehensive federal framework for regulating AI to replace state laws. The order follows attempts to include similar AI moratoriums in bills earlier this year, which failed due to bipartisan backlash. Instead, opponents view the order as a gift to major tech companies that have cozied up to the administration over the course of the year.
“President Trump’s unlawful executive order is nothing more than a brazen effort to upend AI safety and give tech billionaires unchecked power over working people’s jobs, rights and freedoms,” AFL-CIO president, Liz Shuler, said in a statement.
Nationwide backlash
Within hours of Trump signing the order, opposition loudened among lawmakers, labor leaders, children’s advocacy groups and civil liberties organizations that decried the policy. Other California Democratic leaders said the executive order was an assault on state rights and the administration should instead focus on federal agencies and academic research to boost innovation.
“No place in America knows the promise of artificial intelligence technologies better than California,” said Alex Padilla, a senator for California. “But with today’s executive order, the Trump administration is attacking state leadership and basic safeguards in one fell swoop.”
Similarly, Adam Schiff, another California senator, emphasized: “Trump is seeking to preempt state laws that are establishing meaningful safeguards around AI and replace them with … nothing.”
Lawmakers from Colorado to Virginia to New York also took issue with the order. Don Beyer, a Virginia congressmember called it a “terrible idea” and said that it would “create a lawless Wild West environment for AI companies”. Likewise, Alex Bores, a New York state assemblymember, called the order a “massive windfall” for AI companies, adding that “a handful of AI oligarchs bribed Donald Trump into selling out America’s future”.
Even Steve Bannon, Trump loyalist and former adviser, criticized the policy. In a text message to Axios, Bannon said Sacks had “completely misled the President on preemption”. Mike Kubzansky, the CEO of Omidyar Network, a philanthropic tech investment firm that funds AI companies, similarly said “the solution is not to preempt state and local laws” and that ignoring AI’s impact on the country “through a blanket moratorium is an abdication of what elected officials owe their constituents”.
Blowback against the order has also included child protection organizations that have long expressed concerns over the effects of AI on children. The debate over child safety has intensified this year in the wake of multiple lawsuits against AI companies over children who died by suicide after interacting with popular chatbots.
“The AI industry’s relentless race for engagement already has a body count, and, in issuing this order, the administration has made clear it is content to let it grow,” said James Steyer, the CEO of child advocacy group Common Sense Media. “Americans deserve better than tech industry handouts at the expense of their wellbeing.”
A group of bereaved parents and child advocacy organizations have also spoken out. They have been working to pass legislation to better protect children from harmful social media and AI chatbots and released a national public service announcement on Thursday opposing the AI preemption policy. Separately, Sarah Gardner, the CEO of Heat Initiative, one of the groups in the coalition, called the order “unacceptable”.
“Parents will not roll over and allow our children to remain lab rats in big tech’s deadly AI experiment that puts profits over the safety of our kids,” Gardner said. “We need strong protections at the federal and state level, not amnesty for big tech billionaires.”
