The White House Releases National AI Legislative Framework
This morning, the White House released a four-page National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence, which builds on several months of the Trump Administration’s policy statements regarding the roles of state and federal governments in AI regulation.
This announcement follows closely after Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) released a substantial 300-page discussion draft of the “TRUMP AMERICA AI Act”, aimed at codifying President Trump’s Executive Orders on AI. Despite sharing certain priorities, both documents present conflicting views on copyright, developer liability, and Section 230.
The Policy Framework’s Seven Areas of Focus
The White House’s Policy Framework encompasses seven categories, with four being particularly significant for companies involved in the deployment or development of AI:
- Federal preemption of state AI laws: States would be prohibited from regulating AI development altogether. They could not impose restrictions on AI use for activities lawful without AI, nor hold developers accountable for third-party misuse of their models. However, broad exceptions exist, allowing states to maintain authority over child safety, fraud, consumer protection, zoning, and their own procurement of AI.
- Copyright deferred to the courts: The administration asserts that training AI on copyrighted material is lawful but refrains from codifying this stance, urging Congress to let judges resolve fair use questions. It supports the creation of collective licensing frameworks, enabling rights holders to negotiate with AI firms without triggering antitrust liability. This contradicts Blackburn’s draft, which categorically excludes AI training on copyrighted works from fair use.
- Child safety as the anchor: The framework emphasizes age-assurance requirements, platform features to mitigate exploitation and self-harm risks, and the extension of existing child privacy protections to AI systems. This area garners bipartisan support and preserves state authority, particularly concerning AI-generated child sexual abuse material.
- No new federal AI agency: Instead of establishing a centralized regulator, the framework advocates for oversight through existing agencies with relevant expertise (e.g., SEC for financial AI, FDA for health, FTC for consumer issues). Congress is also encouraged to create regulatory sandboxes, though the framework lacks clarity on which agency would oversee them or how they would interact with current regulations.
The remaining three sections address energy (data centers should cover their own power costs), free speech (a cause of action against government censorship via AI platforms), and workforce issues (studying displacement and integrating AI into training programs).
Does this Solve the Open Questions of Federal Preemption?
In summary: no. The diversity of state-level AI regulations currently being considered will complicate the analysis of federal preemption.
While the concept of preemption appears straightforward in this summary, the boundaries between preempted “AI development” regulation and preserved “general applicability” laws remain undefined and untested. For instance, Colorado’s AI Act, effective June 30, imposes obligations on both developers and deployers of high-risk systems. It raises the question: does it regulate AI development or enforce consumer protection? The framework does not provide answers, and newer state AI regulations may include private causes of action in response to federal preemption tactics.
Congress has previously rejected preemption twice: once in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (which was stripped by a 99-1 Senate vote) and again in the FY26 defense authorization bill.
Currently, this framework does not alter existing compliance obligations. However, it signals the Trump Administration’s intent, especially as other federal agencies related to state AI laws are expected to deliver assessments this month. The FTC and Secretary of Commerce have been tasked with evaluating “onerous” state AI regulations, potentially guiding the Department of Justice’s AI Litigation Task Force. Whether this Policy Framework materializes in Congress or the courts remains to be seen, and both paths will be closely monitored.
