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 on the roles of state and federal governments in AI regulation.
This announcement comes only two days after Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) released a sweeping 300-page discussion draft of the “TRUMP AMERICA AI Act,” which seeks to codify President Trump’s Executive Orders on AI. Despite sharing priorities, the two documents disagree on key issues such as copyright, developer liability, and Section 230.
The Policy Framework’s Seven Areas of Focus
The White House’s Policy Framework covers seven categories, but four carry the most weight for companies deploying or developing AI:
1. Federal Preemption of State AI Laws
States would be barred from regulating AI development entirely. They could not impose burdens on AI use for activities that would be lawful without AI, nor could they hold developers liable for how third parties misuse their models. However, the framework carves out broad exceptions, allowing states to maintain authority over child safety, fraud, consumer protection, zoning, and their own government’s procurement of AI. Drawing the line between “AI development” (preempted) and “general consumer protection” (preserved) will be the central fight if this becomes law.
2. Copyright Deferred to the Courts
The administration believes that training AI on copyrighted material is lawful, but rather than codifying this position, it advises Congress to allow judges to resolve the fair use question. It also supports creating collective licensing frameworks so rights holders can negotiate with AI companies without triggering antitrust liability. This stance directly contradicts Blackburn’s bill, which would declare AI training on copyrighted works categorically outside fair use.
3. Child Safety as the Anchor
Age-assurance requirements, platform features to reduce exploitation and self-harm risks, and the extension of existing child privacy protections to AI systems are central to this framework. This area enjoys strong bipartisan support, and the framework deliberately preserves state authority here, including over AI-generated child sexual abuse material.
4. No New Federal AI Agency
Instead of establishing a centralized regulator, the framework routes oversight through existing agencies with relevant expertise, such as the SEC for financial AI, FDA for health, and FTC for consumer issues. Congress is also encouraged to create regulatory sandboxes, though the framework does not specify which agency would manage them or how they would interact with existing rules.
The remaining three sections cover energy (data centers should pay for their own power, not ratepayers), free speech (a cause of action against government censorship via AI platforms), and workforce issues (studying displacement and adding AI to existing training programs).
Does this Solve the Open Questions of Federal Preemption?
In a word: “no.” The diversity of state-level AI regulations under consideration and entering effect will complicate the analysis.
Although the preemption concept sounds straightforward in this four-page summary, the boundary between preempted “AI development” regulation and preserved “general applicability” laws remains undefined and untested. For example, Colorado’s AI Act, effective June 30, imposes obligations on both developers and deployers of high-risk systems. The framework does not clarify whether it regulates “AI development” or enforces consumer protection.
For now, this framework changes nothing about existing compliance obligations. However, it sends a strong signal of the Trump Administration’s intent, especially with other federal agency deliverables related to state AI laws due this month. The FTC and Secretary of Commerce have been instructed to assess “onerous” state AI regulations, which may serve as a roadmap for the Department of Justice’s AI Litigation Task Force. Whether this Policy Framework plays out in Congress or the courts remains to be seen, and both paths will be closely monitored.
