Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence
46 comments
·December 11, 2025rubyfan
Is it me or does this seem like naked corruption at its worst? These tech CEOs hang out at the White House and donate to superfluous causes and suddenly the executive is protecting their interests. This does nothing to protect working US citizens from AI alien (agents) coming to take their jobs and displace their incomes.
AndrewKemendo
> protect working US citizens from AI alien (agents) coming to take their jobs and displace their incomes
So where is this coalition that’s organized to actually make this real?
Software engineers are allergic to unionization (despite the recent id win) and 100% of capital owners (this is NOT business owner and operators I’m talking about LPs and Fund Managers) are in support of labor automation as a priority, so who will fund and lead your advocacy?
chinabot
regardless if you like the orange man, having 50 sets of differing AI rules to work to would be totally stupid.
treetalker
Federal Preemption: A Legal Primer — https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45825
dav-
What does this have to do with executive orders?
alwa
I imagine it’s a nod to the way the stated goal would normally be pursued, but in this case is not.
It sounds like a good idea to establish a uniform national policy! And the federal government can do that (although only for the very specific purposes spelled out in the Constitution). The right way to do that is to pass a law through both houses of Congress, and the president to sign it into law. Maybe the law even specifies a broad framework and authorizes the executive branch to dial in the specific details (although the court seems to be souring on that kind of thing too).
The god-king proclaiming a brand new framework governing a major new sector of the economy To Be So is.. not the normal way
peterlk
The link is highly relevant to the executive order because this executive order attempts to place limitations on what laws US states can create.
lesuorac
EOs aren't law though. They're guidance for the rest of the executive branch on how to execute the laws written by congress.
The Legislative branch (Congress) not the Executive branch (White House) can preempt states.
throw0101a
Executive order (EO) count over the last few presidents:
* Bush (41): 166
* Clinton (two terms): 364
* Bush (43; two terms): 291
* Obama (two terms): 276
* Trump (45): 220
* Biden: 162
* Trump (47; <1 year): 218
Source:
* https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-or...
Someone commented that (one of?) the reason that Trump is using EOs so much is probably because is not willing (or able) to actually get deals on in the legislature to pass his policies (or what passes for policy with him).
conception
Or why bother when no one will stop you from ruling by fiat?
nh23423fefe
Yes, why would you bother not exercising power you possess?
scythmic_waves
Yep. I punch literally everyone I meet in the face.
I have the power to do it. Why would I not?
LPisGood
I once heard it said that Trump governs like a dictator because he is too weak to govern like a president. He is extremely unpopular and his party holds one of the smallest house majorities ever.
gigatree
*Extremely unpopular in DC, fwiw
Alupis
There is a very vocal opposition to Trump. However, by almost any way you can present "popularity" of a president - be it approval ratings, polling figures, popular vote, electoral vote, etc. - he is one of the more popular presidents in US history.
It's easy to get caught in an echo chamber of like-minded individuals and assume everyone disagrees with his policies - but that is far from reality.
lesuorac
> However, by almost any way you can present "popularity" of a president - be it approval ratings, polling figures, popular vote, electoral vote, etc. - he is one of the more popular presidents in US history.
You might want to look up those polling data yourself because uh he's actually wildly unpopular in most of those metrics.
Approval - 42.5% [1]. Much better than Trump's love interest Biden's 37.1% [2] but being below 50% is unpopular.
Popular Vote / Electoral Vote - 49.8%, 312. I may need to tell you this so I will. 50% is greater than 49.8%; a majority of voters (nevermind the country) did not want Trump. As before, this is better than Biden's 306 and Trump1's 304 but worse than Obama2 (332), Obama1 (365) and in general 312 (57%) is nothing to write home about.
[1]: https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-sil...
chrisjj
> Earlier this week, he reiterated that sentiment in a post on Truth Social, saying: “We are beating ALL COUNTRIES at this point in the race, but that won’t last long if we are going to have 50 States, many of them bad actors
Has Trump IDed the alleged bad actor states?
munchler
It’s the blue ones, of course.
sigwinch
It’s hard to tell if what he says is even relate to what he will do. A hardline on semiconductors to China faded this week when he needed some economic stimulation.
So when states without AI data centers seek to ameliorate tax and zoning obstacles, it won’t be Federal preemption in their way, but what benefits Trump.
chrisjj
True current title: Trump signs executive order aimed at preventing states from regulating AI
treetalker
Federal Preemption: A Legal Primer — https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45825
xeonmc
In a parallel universe, the government in the 20th century signed bills protecting tobacco giants from State regulation to encourage investments furthering the country’s international competitiveness in the tobacco industry.
sigwinch
That does kind of draw a contrast between Jesse Helms, the ultimate tobacco Senator, and Trump. They’re almost opposites.
andsoitis
White House AI czar and Silicon Valley venture capitalist David Sacks elaborated on the rationale for the executive order in a post on X.
Sacks argued that this domain of “interstate commerce” was “the type of economic activity that the Framers of the Constitution intended to reserve for the federal government to regulate.”
At the Oval Office signing ceremony, Sacks said, "We have 50 states running in 50 different directions. It just doesn't make sense."
mcdan
So much for "states rights" and the "laboratories of democracy."
AndrewKemendo
We had a pretty decisive event eliminating precicely that experiment
TimorousBestie
Could you be more specific?
jandrewrogers
Wickard v Filburn rearing its ugly ahead again.
rubyfan
I’m not a legal scholar but this seems pretty bone headed.
CPLX
> Sacks argued that this domain of “interstate commerce” was “the type of economic activity that the Framers of the Constitution intended to reserve for the federal government to regulate.”
They did indeed. It’s explicitly delegated to congress which declined to pass a law like this.
The EO is just obviously null and void in the face of any relevant state law.
ChrisArchitect
meanwhile the url is a different, more direct kind of statement:
eliminating-state-law-obstruction-of-national-artificial-intelligence-policy
k310
> Republicans earlier this year failed to pass a similar 10-year moratorium on state laws that regulate AI as part of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, with the Senate voting 99-1 to remove that ban from the legislation. Trump’s order resurrects that effort, which failed after bipartisan pushback and Republican infighting, but as an order that lacks the force of law. [0]
> Trump has framed the need for comprehensive AI regulation as both a necessity for the technology’s development and as a means of preventing leftist ideology from infiltrating generative AI – a common conservative grievance among tech leaders such as Elon Musk.
On the other hand ..... Grok and others ...
From the party of "states rights" and "small government"
[0] https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/d...
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/11/trump-signs-executive-order-...
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-signs-executive...