Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Ensures a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

12/11/2025

Fact Sheets

View Original

Action Summary

National AI Framework: Establish a unified, federal policy to preempt a patchwork of disparate and costly State AI regulations.
AI Litigation Task Force: The Attorney General is directed to form a task force to challenge State AI laws that are unconstitutional, preempted, or otherwise unlawful.
State Law Evaluation and Funding: The Secretary of Commerce must assess State AI laws conflicting with national priorities, with BEAD funding withheld from States enforcing such rules; other agencies may condition discretionary grants based on law enforcement discretion.
Consumer Protection Measures: The FTC and FCC are instructed to act against States that force AI companies to adopt practices (such as embedding DEI or imposing censorship) that may mislead consumers or contravene federal standards.
Legislative Framework Development: Initiate efforts to craft a national AI legislative framework that overrules restrictive State laws, streamlining innovation and competitiveness.
Boosting U.S. Competitiveness: Reduce compliance costs and development burdens imposed by over 1,000 State AI bills, ensuring U.S. companies remain globally competitive and shielded from international disparity.
Common Sense AI Policy: Remove unnecessary red tape, update outdated regulations, and clarify rules for AI use-cases to support technological growth and maintain national security and economic prosperity.
Policy Consistency and National Security: Emphasize the danger of leaving the most restrictive State policies to dictate national AI strategy, potentially undermining U.S. leadership in the AI race.
Context and Historical Actions: Reinforces earlier actions such as the Take It Down Act protecting children from deepfake exploitation and past directives that prevent federal use of ideologically biased AI models.

Risks & Considerations

The Executive Order aims to prevent a patchwork of AI regulations across states, posing potential challenges for Vanderbilt in navigating the interplay of federal and state laws. This may require monitoring and adapting to shifts in regulatory environments.
With a focus on minimizing compliance costs and standardizing AI regulations, there is a risk that states with stricter regulations may face funding penalties, impacting collaborations and partnerships Vanderbilt might have with institutions in those states.
The emphasis on a federal AI framework could limit states’ abilities to implement their own AI policies, potentially affecting research priorities and the development of AI technologies at the university level.
Vanderbilt may need to ensure that its AI-related research and development programs align with the federal standards to maintain eligibility for federal grants and funding opportunities.

Impacted Programs

School of Engineering and Computer Science at Vanderbilt could see increased demand for expertise in AI policy and ethics, potentially expanding research opportunities and industry collaborations.
Research centers focused on AI and technology may need to align with federal standards, influencing the direction of ongoing and future projects.
The Office of Sponsored Programs might need to reevaluate grant application strategies to ensure compliance with the new federal AI framework and associated conditions.
Vanderbilt’s involvement in state-level AI initiatives may shift as federal policies take precedence, requiring strategic adjustments in its engagement with state partners.

Financial Impact

The withholding of BEAD funding from states with conflicting AI laws may affect Vanderbilt’s funding landscape, particularly if operating in or collaborating with affected states.
The drive for a unified federal AI framework could open new funding opportunities, especially if Vanderbilt aligns its research with national AI priorities.
Changes in state regulations might necessitate reallocating resources to ensure compliance with federal standards, impacting budget allocations and project planning.
Potential shifts in federal grant availability could encourage Vanderbilt to focus more on AI technologies that align with the federal agenda, potentially benefiting financially from increased federal support.

Relevance Score: 3 (The order presents moderate risks involving compliance and the need for strategic alignment with federal AI policies.)

Key Actions

Vanderbilt’s Data Science Institute should monitor developments in the national AI legislative framework and evaluate potential impacts on research initiatives. Aligning with new federal standards will be crucial to maintaining compliance and securing research funding.
The Office of Federal Relations should engage with policymakers to influence the federal AI standards and ensure that considerations relevant to academic institutions are included, particularly regarding research ethics and innovation incentives.
Vanderbilt’s Legal Team should assess state and federal AI regulations to ensure that institutional policies align with the new national AI framework, reducing legal risks and compliance burdens.
The School of Engineering should explore opportunities to lead initiatives that conform to the federal AI standards, positioning Vanderbilt as a leader in AI research and applications.
Vanderbilt’s Public Policy Studies should analyze the societal impacts of uniform AI policies and contribute to public discourse, providing valuable insights into the balance between innovation and regulation.

Opportunities

The executive order provides an opportunity for Vanderbilt’s Research Centers to secure funding for AI projects that align with national priorities, potentially increasing competitiveness and innovation in AI technologies.
Vanderbilt can leverage the focus on reducing state compliance costs by developing partnerships with AI companies seeking collaboration with institutions that are well-aligned with federal guidelines.
The emphasis on a unified AI policy framework offers a platform for Vanderbilt’s Policy Institutes to conduct studies and propose frameworks that support innovation while addressing ethical concerns.
By engaging in developing AI policy, Vanderbilt can enhance its reputation as a thought leader in AI ethics and governance, opening doors for collaboration with government and industry leaders.
The alignment with federal policy could facilitate Vanderbilt’s Technology Transfer Office in accelerating the commercialization of AI research by reducing regulatory obstacles.

Relevance Score: 4 (The order requires major process changes to align research and collaboration efforts with new federal AI standards.)

Average Relevance Score: 3

Timeline for Implementation

N/A: No explicit timelines or deadlines for the actions are mentioned in the document, as all directives are presented without a defined deadline for implementation.

Relevance Score: 1

Impacted Government Organizations

Department of Justice (Attorney General): Tasked with establishing an AI Litigation Task Force to challenge state laws that undermine a coherent national AI framework.
Department of Commerce (Secretary of Commerce): Directed to publish an evaluation of state AI laws and manage the withholding of BEAD funding for states with conflicting regulations.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC): Instructed to take measures to limit state mandates that could induce deceptive practices by AI companies and to assess potential violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC): Directed to consider adopting federal reporting and disclosure standards for AI models, curbing state-level impositions on tech companies.

Relevance Score: 2 (A moderate number of Federal Agencies are impacted by the order.)

Responsible Officials

Attorney General – Directed to establish an AI Litigation Task Force to challenge State AI laws deemed unconstitutional, preempted, or otherwise unlawful.
Secretary of Commerce – Tasked with publishing an evaluation of conflicting State AI laws and withholding BEAD funding from States with such laws.
Federal Trade Commission – Instructed to take measures to limit State actions that could force AI companies into deceptive practices.
Federal Communications Commission – Also instructed to act on limiting State measures impacting consumer protection in the AI context.

Relevance Score: 5 (Directives affect several high-level officials, including Cabinet members like the Attorney General and Secretary of Commerce.)