White House Seeks Industry Input on Laws and Rules that Hinder AI Development
On September 26, the White House invited the public to submit comments on Federal laws, rules, and policies that “unnecessarily hinder” the development or deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in the United States. This request marks one of the Trump Administration’s most substantial moves yet to reduce the regulatory burden on AI. Respondents may submit comments through a government website until October 27, 2025.
The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) issued this Request for Information: Regulatory Reform on Artificial Intelligence in response to the Administration’s Winning the Race: America’s AI Action Plan, released in July 2025. The Plan’s first recommendation was for OSTP to issue an RFI from “businesses and the public at large about current Federal regulations that hinder AI innovation and adoption, and work with relevant Federal agencies to take appropriate action.” This move marks a material shift from other regions that are looking to increasingly regulate potential AI harms, such as in Europe through the EU AI Act.
The Importance of Submitting Comments
Companies developing or deploying AI systems that are impacted by “Federal statutes, regulations, agency rules, guidance, forms, and administrative processes” should seriously consider submitting comments to OSTP. Doing so helps ensure that any new AI regulatory action accounts for the industry’s operational experience and lessons learned that may otherwise go overlooked by policymakers. The RFI highlights regulations of the healthcare and transportation sectors as particularly ripe for review and reform.
Key Questions Posed in the RFI
The RFI invites responses to one or more of six questions, focusing on the belief that most existing regulatory regimes and policy mechanisms were developed prior to the rise of AI technology. Such frameworks often rest on assumptions about human-operated systems that are not appropriate for AI-enabled or AI-augmented systems. The RFI identifies five barriers related to these obstructive policy frameworks:
- Policy frameworks that ignore technological progress
- Assumptions that inhibit the development, deployment, and adoption of AI
- Regulations that create unnecessary barriers to beneficial AI applications
- Incompatibility with how AI systems function
- Regulations that serve important purposes but are outdated
A Deregulatory Push Amidst Increased Governmental Intervention
OSTP’s information request is the first concrete action aimed at reducing AI regulations. The Plan also recommends that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) review prior investigations or judgments that burden AI innovation, and it suggests the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) induce state governments to remove “burdensome AI regulation” through the possible denial of Federal funding.
The White House has taken other steps to insert itself in AI development and deployment, highlighting the interplay between the Administration’s domestic quasi-deregulatory agenda on AI, its focus on enhancing American AI exports while simultaneously constraining access to certain AI components by foreign adversaries, and its overall objective to “achieve global dominance” in AI. This regulatory reform’s international implications should inform OSTP comments made by companies developing or deploying AI tools or systems intended for use abroad.
Companies may wish to consider whether the U.S. regulatory regime ought to strive for a degree of interoperability, mutual recognition, or parity with the approach taken in key foreign partner markets as a mechanism to advance broader adoption of the U.S. AI tech stack. Furthermore, advocacy for deregulation in the U.S. may require the Administration to advocate similar approaches abroad, including ongoing efforts to reduce regulatory divergence in the fields of data protection and intellectual property, which tie directly to AI.
Contrasting Approaches to AI Regulation
The White House RFI contrasts sharply with attempts to further regulate AI in other jurisdictions. The EU AI Act is one such initiative, bringing in detailed rules around the development and use of AI, categorizing different types of AI based on harm and risk, and threatening major fines based on a percentage of global revenue. This divergence from the Trump Administration’s approach is likely to complicate legal compliance for U.S. businesses operating internationally.
Conclusion
Finally, the RFI queries the public only for information on Federal regulations while recognizing that states remain the locus of lawmaking and rulemaking on AI. Companies should remain vigilant regarding their growing requirements in this space. For more on these trends, organizations may consider participating in upcoming discussions and webinars focused on the evolving AI regulatory landscape.
