Being the world’s leading AI innovator comes with a prize. But is it a good one?
President Trump’s Executive Order (EO), Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence” has experts debating the cost at which global AI supremacy might come.
“To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation,” states the December 11th EO, underscoring new federal measures to override state policies and “remove barriers to United States AI leadership.”
Given the complexity of adhering to 50 different AI state frameworks, a unified federal standard could be a breath of fresh air for companies looking to do AI business across local borders.
But if the Administration’s rules are not stringent enough, easier guidelines could just mean easier inroads for attackers—and ultimately undermined aims in the AI arms race.
What Changes with the New AI Executive Order
Under the new law, “[i]t is the policy of the United States to sustain and enhance the United States’ global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI.”
This entails:
- An AI litigation task force | This group enforces the new national code by challenging State AI laws that go against it.
- Evaluation of state laws | All existing State AI laws will be examined for “onerous laws that conflict with the policy.” These include laws that alter truthful outputs or compel the violation of the First Amendment or other Constitutional provisions.
- Federal reporting and disclosure | Within 90 days of the EO, talks will begin around instituting a reporting and disclosure standard for AI models at the federal level that would supersede any existing state laws.
Other provisions are outlined, such as revoking funding for non-compliant states and replacing non-compliant laws. Importantly, the new federal policy will not touch existing state regulations around child safety protections, AI datacenter infrastructure, and state government use of AI.
“We’re keeping a close eye on two things,” noted Denis Calderone, CRO and COO of Suzu Labs. “The Commerce Department’s 90-day analysis identifying which state laws are deemed ‘onerous,’ and what ultimately falls under…the ‘other topics as shall be determined’ provision. Those details will define the actual boundary between federal preemption and preserved state authority.”
The 50 States Patchwork: Problem or Protection?
Experts believe that differing State AI laws present complications for AI competition. But they worry that leaving things in federal hands may have unforeseen implications as well.
“From a pure compliance standpoint, the patchwork problem is real,” notes Calderone. “Organizations deploying AI across multiple states face an increasingly complex web of conflicting requirements.”
On the other hand, “States have every right to push back on a ‘one rulebook’ approach,” says Tony Monell, Vice President of Public Sector at Black Kite. However, he concedes that doing so may result in them losing federal funding.
Despite the fear of slow federal gears, Monell argues that “this topic is too important to allow political squabbles to get in the way of sound governance.”
He states: “The nation that leads in technology innovation establishes the rules.”
An Issue of Policy or Practicality?
Aside from the issues of governance and leadership, questions remain. Can the nationwide policy move fast enough to do what needs to be done?
Damon Small, Board of Directors at Xcape, Inc., explains, “this preemptive move…raises concerns about whether federal standards can evolve as quickly as state-level experiments, particularly in areas like transparency and accountability.”
And will a unified federal framework go deep enough to provide the same level of protection? Or will security be sacrificed to innovation?
Experts argue that it will be difficult to do both. While the law aims to provide US companies with streamlined compliance and a green light to secure AI competition, it remains to be seen whether it will play out in fact.
As Small sums up: “If national AI leadership is the goal, speed and clarity matter. But durable trust will depend on whether innovation and responsibility advance together, not sequentially.
An ardent believer in personal data privacy and the technology behind it, Katrina Thompson is a freelance writer leaning into encryption, data privacy legislation, and the intersection of information technology and human rights. She has written for Bora, Venafi, Tripwire, and many other sites.
The opinions expressed in this post belong to the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Information Security Buzz.