Donald Trump says he’s about to redraw the map for how artificial intelligence is regulated in the US — with a single federal “One Rule” standard that could sideline state laws and spark a wave of legal fights.
In a Truth Social post this week, Trump said there “must be only One Rulebook” for AI if the US wants to stay ahead globally, warning that the technology “will be destroyed in its infancy” if companies have to navigate 50 different state frameworks.
One national rulebook for AI
Trump says he plans to sign what he’s calling a “ONE RULE Executive Order” on AI “this week,” framing it as an effort to cut through regulatory fragmentation. “You can’t expect a company to get 50 approvals every time they want to do something. THAT WILL NEVER WORK!” he wrote.
According to reporting from Reuters and others, the order is expected to push for a single national standard on AI oversight, limiting how far individual states can go with their own rules.
The White House has not yet released the full text of the order, and Trump hasn’t detailed which agencies would take the lead. But the message is clear: he wants companies building AI models and products to deal primarily with Washington, not a patchwork of state capitals.
What the draft order could actually do
A draft version of the AI order that has been circulating in Washington offers a rough sketch of how “One Rule” might work in practice. According to multiple reports, the draft would:
- Instruct the Department of Justice to challenge state AI laws in court, arguing they’re preempted by federal policy.
- Consider tying some federal funding to state compliance with the administration’s AI framework.
- Push federal agencies to create a common approval or certification process for key AI systems.
Tech and AI companies have been lobbying hard for exactly this kind of federal preemption, warning that a patchwork of state rules would slow deployment and raise compliance costs. Firms like OpenAI, Google, Meta, and venture capital outfits including Andreessen Horowitz have all backed a national standard that keeps most of the power in DC.
Republicans split over preempting state AI rules
Trump’s “One Rule” pitch puts him at odds with some Republicans who usually favor strong state authority.
Reports from the Financial Times and other outlets say GOP figures including Senator Josh Hawley and governors like Ron DeSantis and Sarah Huckabee Sanders have questioned or outright opposed sweeping federal preemption on AI.
DeSantis, in a veiled response on X, argued that an executive order “doesn’t/can’t preempt state legislative action,” signaling that Florida isn’t eager to hand over its regulatory power to the White House.
The split underscores a growing rift on the right: nationalizing AI rules appeals to pro-business Republicans and industry-aligned advisers, but rankles those who see it as federal overreach into areas states have been actively exploring — including AI use in hiring, education, policing, and consumer protection.
Congress already balked once
Before Trump leaned into the “One Rule” branding, allies had tried a different route: slipping AI preemption language into a must-pass defense policy bill.
That effort collapsed. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise reportedly pushed back, saying the AI measure wasn’t a good fit for the legislation. The language was ultimately stripped, leaving the White House to fall back on executive action instead of statute.
That matters because, legally, an executive order is much weaker than a law. It can direct federal agencies, but it can’t simply erase state statutes on its own.
Legal experts say ‘One Rule’ will be tested in court
Democrats, civil society groups, and some legal scholars are already signaling that Trump’s AI order will face immediate challenges.
A draft seen by reporters suggests the strategy would be to argue that certain state AI rules interfere with federal priorities or interstate commerce — a classic preemption argument.
But constitutional and administrative law experts quoted in outlets like the Financial Times note that:
- Executive orders cannot create new law; only Congress can do that.
- Courts tend to scrutinize efforts to override state police powers, especially around privacy, safety, and discrimination.
- Any attempt to threaten broad funding cuts to pressure states could trigger separate constitutional challenges.
Representative Ted Lieu, a Democrat and frequent tech-policy voice, summed up this skepticism bluntly on social media, saying Trump’s “one rule” AI order is likely to fail in court because it leans on ideas Congress already rejected.
Industry welcomes clarity — but the details are everything
For AI companies, the broad strokes of Trump’s plan are attractive: one primary regulator, one overarching standard, fewer conflicting obligations.
Investors who have been pushing for rapid AI deployment argue that state-level experiments — including rules proposed in California, New York, and elsewhere — risk turning the US into a maze of micro-jurisdictions, slowing down releases or pushing companies to base critical work overseas.
But the lack of detail in Trump’s public comments leaves big questions unanswered:
- What exactly counts as “AI” for the purposes of this order?
- Will there be hard requirements for safety testing, transparency, or red-teaming?
- Which agency is in charge — the Commerce Department, the FTC, a new AI office, or a mix of all three?
Until the full text of the executive order is published, “One Rule” is more political slogan than legal reality. The moment it lands in the Federal Register, the next battle begins — in statehouses and courtrooms around the country.