\n<\/p>\n
The Trump administration on Friday laid out a legislative framework<\/a> for a singular policy for AI in the United States. The framework would centralize power in Washington by preempting state AI laws, potentially undercutting the recent surge of efforts from states to regulate the use and development of the technology.<\/p>\n \u201cThis framework can only succeed if it is applied uniformly across the United States,\u201d reads a White House statement on the framework. \u201cA patchwork of conflicting state laws would undermine American innovation and our ability to lead in the global AI race.\u201d<\/p>\n The framework outlines seven key objectives that prioritize innovation and scaling AI, and proposes a centralized federal approach that would override stricter state-level regulations. It places significant responsibility on parents for issues like child safety, and lays out relatively soft, nonbinding expectations for platform accountability.\u00a0<\/p>\n For example, it says Congress should require AI companies to implement features that \u201creduce the risks of sexual exploitation and harm to minors,\u201d but does not lay out any clear, enforceable requirements.<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s framework comes three months after he signed an executive order<\/a> directing federal agencies to challenge state AI laws. The order gave the Commerce Department 90 days to compile a list of \u201conerous\u201d state AI laws, potentially risking states\u2019 eligibility for federal funds like broadband grants. The agency has yet to publish that list.<\/p>\n The order also directed the administration to work with Congress on a uniform AI law. That vision is coming into focus, and it mirrors Trump\u2019s earlier AI strategy<\/a>, which focused less on guardrails and more on promoting companies\u2019 growth.<\/p>\n The new framework proposes a \u201cminimally burdensome national standard,\u201d echoing the administration\u2019s broader push to \u201cremove outdated or unnecessary barriers to innovation\u201d and accelerate AI adoptions across industries. This is a pro-growth, light-touch regulatory approach championed by \u201caccelerationists,\u201d one of whom is White House AI czar and venture capitalist David Sacks.\u00a0<\/p>\n Techcrunch event<\/p>\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSan Francisco, CA<\/span> While the framework nods to federalism, the carve-outs for states are relatively narrow, preserving only their authority over general laws like fraud and child protection, zoning, and state use of AI. It draws a hard line against states regulating AI development itself, which it says is an \u201cinherently interstate\u201d issue tied to national security and foreign policy.\u00a0<\/p>\n The framework also seeks to prevent states from \u201cpenaliz[ing] AI developers for a third party\u2019s unlawful conduct involving their models\u201d \u2014 a key liability shield for developers.<\/p>\n Missing from that framework are any gestures toward liability frameworks, independent oversight, or enforcement mechanisms for potential novel harms caused by AI. In effect, the framework would centralize AI policymaking in Washington while narrowing the space for states to act as early regulators of emerging risks.<\/p>\n Critics say states are the sandboxes of democracy and have been quicker to pass laws around emerging risks. Notably, New York\u2019s RAISE Act<\/a> and California\u2019s SB-53<\/a> seek to ensure large AI companies have and adhere to safety protocols that are publicly documented.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWhite House AI czar David Sacks continues to do the bidding of Big Tech at the expense of regular, hardworking Americans,\u201d said Brendan Steinhauser, CEO of The Alliance for Secure AI. \u201cThis federal AI framework seeks to prevent states from legislating on AI and provides no path to accountability for AI developers for the harms caused by their products.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Many in the AI industry are celebrating this direction because it gives them broader liberties to \u201cinnovate\u201d without the threat of regulation.<\/p>\n \u201cThis framework is exactly what startups have been asking for: a clear national standard so they can build fast and scale,\u201d Teresa Carlson, president of General Catalyst Institute, told TechCrunch. \u201cFounders shouldn\u2019t have to navigate a patchwork of conflicting state AI laws that impede innovation.\u201d<\/p>\n The framework was issued at a moment when child safety has emerged as a central flashpoint<\/a> in the debate over AI. Certain states have moved aggressively to pass laws aimed at protecting minors<\/a> and placing more responsibility<\/a> on tech companies. The administration\u2019s proposal points in a different direction, placing greater emphasis on parental control than platform accountability.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cParents are best equipped to manage their children\u2019s digital environment and upbringing,\u201d the framework reads. \u201cThe Administration is calling on Congress to give parents tools to effectively do that, such as account controls to protect their children\u2019s privacy and manage their device use.\u201d<\/p>\n The framework also says the administration \u201cbelieves\u201d that AI platforms should \u201cimplement features to reduce potential sexual exploitation of children and encouragement of self-harm.\u201d While it calls on Congress to require such safeguards and affirms that existing laws, including those banning child sexual abuse materials, should apply to AI systems, the proposal employs qualifiers like \u201ccommercially reasonable\u201d and stops short of laying out clear prerequisites.<\/p>\n On the topic of copyright, the framework attempts to find a middle ground between protecting creators and allowing AI systems to be trained on existing works, citing the need for \u201cfair use.\u201d That kind of language mirrors arguments AI companies have made as they face a growing number of copyright lawsuits<\/a> over their training data.\u00a0<\/p>\n The main guardrails Trump\u2019s AI framework seem to outline involve ensuring \u201cAI can pursue truth and accuracy without limitation.\u201d Specifically, it focuses on preventing government-driven censorship, rather than platform moderation itself.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cCongress should prevent the United States government from coercing technology providers, including AI providers, to ban, compel, or alter content based on partisan or ideological agendas,\u201d the framework reads. It also instructs Congress to provide a way for Americans to pursue legal redress against government agencies that seek to censor expression on AI platforms or dictate information provided by an AI platform.<\/p>\n The framework comes as Anthropic is suing<\/a> the government for allegedly infringing on its First Amendment rights after the Department of Defense (DOD) labeled it a supply-chain risk<\/a>. Anthropic argues that the DOD is designating it as such in retaliation for not allowing the military to use its AI products for mass surveillance of Americans or for making targeting and firing decisions in autonomous lethal weapons. Trump has referred to Anthropic and its CEO Dario Amodei as \u201cwoke\u201d and a \u201cradical leftist.\u201d<\/p>\n The framework\u2019s language, which emphasizes protecting \u201clawful political expression or dissent,\u201d seems to build on Trump\u2019s earlier executive order targeting \u201cwoke AI,\u201d<\/a> which pushed federal agencies to adopt systems deemed ideologically neutral.\u00a0<\/p>\n It\u2019s unclear what qualifies as censorship versus standard content moderation, so such language could make it difficult for regulators to coordinate with platforms on issues like misinformation, election interference, or public safety risks.\u00a0<\/p>\n Samir Jain, vice president of policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology, pointed out: \u201c[The framework] rightly says that the government should not coerce AI companies to ban or alter content based on \u2018partisan or ideological agendas,\u2019 yet the Administration\u2019s \u2018woke AI\u2019 Executive Order this summer does exactly that.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t|<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOctober 13-15, 2026<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\nChild safety, copyright, and free speech<\/h2>\n