🔗 Share this article California Governor Gavin Newsom Responds on President Trump's AI Executive Order Seeking to Preempting State Laws. The ink was barely dry on the President's sweeping AI policy directive when Gavin Newsom launched a sharp critique. Shortly following the order went public on Thursday night, the governor released comments contending that the presidential dictum, which aims to block local governments from crafting their own AI rules, advances “grift and corruption” instead of true technological progress. “The administration and its adviser aren’t making policy – they are executing a scheme,” the governor declared, referencing Trump’s AI adviser. “Every day, they push the limits to see what they can get away with.” A Major Victory for Silicon Valley Creates a Federal-State Clash The presidential directive is seen as a decisive win for tech firms that have lobbied vigorously to remove regulatory hurdles to developing and deploying their AI products. It also sets up a potential conflict between state governments and the White House over the future of AI regulation. Swift criticism from organizations such as child safety advocates, unions, and elected leaders has underscored the deeply contentious nature of the order. A number of leaders and organizations have raised doubts about the legality of the directive, stating that Trump lacks the power to undermine state legislation on AI and labeling the decree as the product of powerful corporate influence. The state of California, the base for many leading tech firms and one of the most active states on AI policy, has emerged as a primary hub for resistance against the order. “This executive order is profoundly flawed, grossly unethical, and will actually hinder progress and erode confidence in the long run,” said a lawmaker from California, one official. “We are examining all avenues – from the courts to Congress – to overturn this policy.” Legislative Loggerheads and Potential Legal Duel In September, Newsom signed a landmark AI law that would compel developers of large, powerful AI models to provide transparency reports and promptly report critical failures or risk penalties up to $1 million. Newsom championed this legislation as a blueprint for regulating AI companies across the country. “California's position as a worldwide innovator in technology allows us a distinct chance to provide a blueprint for sensible regulations beyond our borders,” the governor said in an address. “Especially in the absence of a comprehensive federal AI policy.” This September bill and other California legislation could now be in Trump’s crosshairs. Thursday’s executive order calls for an legal review panel that would scrutinize local regulations deemed not to “bolster the United States’ competitive edge” and then initiate lawsuits or potentially withhold federal broadband funding. Opponents argue that the administration has failed to deliver any comprehensive federal framework to replace the state laws it seeks to preempt. “President Trump’s unlawful executive order is simply a brazen effort to upend AI safety and grant powerful executives unchecked power over employment, freedoms and livelihoods,” said AFL-CIO president, Liz Shuler. Nationwide Backlash Erupts From Multiple Quarters Shortly after the order was signed, opposition loudened among elected officials, union heads, children’s advocacy groups and civil liberties organizations that condemned the policy. Other California Democratic leaders argued the action was an assault on state rights. “No state knows the promise of AI better than California,” said a U.S. Senator. “However, this new policy, the administration is attacking state leadership and fundamental protections in one fell swoop.” In a similar vein, another senator stressed: “The President is seeking to preempt state laws that are creating vital protections around AI and substituting them with … nothing.” Lawmakers from multiple states also took issue with the order. A Virginia representative called it a “disastrous policy” that would “create a lawless Wild West environment for AI companies”. Another state legislator described the directive a “huge giveaway” for AI firms, stating that “a handful of AI oligarchs bribed the President into selling out America’s future”. Remarkably, even a former Trump adviser criticized the policy, reportedly stating that the AI czar had “given poor counsel to the President on this issue”. The head of an investment firm similarly said that “the answer does not lie in overriding local regulations”. Protecting Children Take Center Stage Resistance against the order has also included child protection organizations that have long expressed concerns over the impacts of AI on minors. The debate has intensified this year following multiple lawsuits against AI companies related to tragic incidents. “The tech sector's unchecked pursuit for user attention already has a body count, and, in enacting this policy, the administration has signaled it is content to let it grow,” argued James Steyer. “The public deserves more than corporate favors at the expense of their wellbeing.” A coalition of bereaved parents and child advocacy organizations have publicly opposed the order. They have been working to pass legislation to safeguard children from harmful social media and AI chatbots and issued a PSA opposing the AI preemption policy. “Families will not roll over and allow our kids to remain lab rats in dangerous corporate trials that prioritizes revenue over the safety of our kids,” said Sarah Gardner. “It is essential to have strong protections at the national and local level, not immunity for wealthy executives.”
The ink was barely dry on the President's sweeping AI policy directive when Gavin Newsom launched a sharp critique. Shortly following the order went public on Thursday night, the governor released comments contending that the presidential dictum, which aims to block local governments from crafting their own AI rules, advances “grift and corruption” instead of true technological progress. “The administration and its adviser aren’t making policy – they are executing a scheme,” the governor declared, referencing Trump’s AI adviser. “Every day, they push the limits to see what they can get away with.” A Major Victory for Silicon Valley Creates a Federal-State Clash The presidential directive is seen as a decisive win for tech firms that have lobbied vigorously to remove regulatory hurdles to developing and deploying their AI products. It also sets up a potential conflict between state governments and the White House over the future of AI regulation. Swift criticism from organizations such as child safety advocates, unions, and elected leaders has underscored the deeply contentious nature of the order. A number of leaders and organizations have raised doubts about the legality of the directive, stating that Trump lacks the power to undermine state legislation on AI and labeling the decree as the product of powerful corporate influence. The state of California, the base for many leading tech firms and one of the most active states on AI policy, has emerged as a primary hub for resistance against the order. “This executive order is profoundly flawed, grossly unethical, and will actually hinder progress and erode confidence in the long run,” said a lawmaker from California, one official. “We are examining all avenues – from the courts to Congress – to overturn this policy.” Legislative Loggerheads and Potential Legal Duel In September, Newsom signed a landmark AI law that would compel developers of large, powerful AI models to provide transparency reports and promptly report critical failures or risk penalties up to $1 million. Newsom championed this legislation as a blueprint for regulating AI companies across the country. “California's position as a worldwide innovator in technology allows us a distinct chance to provide a blueprint for sensible regulations beyond our borders,” the governor said in an address. “Especially in the absence of a comprehensive federal AI policy.” This September bill and other California legislation could now be in Trump’s crosshairs. Thursday’s executive order calls for an legal review panel that would scrutinize local regulations deemed not to “bolster the United States’ competitive edge” and then initiate lawsuits or potentially withhold federal broadband funding. Opponents argue that the administration has failed to deliver any comprehensive federal framework to replace the state laws it seeks to preempt. “President Trump’s unlawful executive order is simply a brazen effort to upend AI safety and grant powerful executives unchecked power over employment, freedoms and livelihoods,” said AFL-CIO president, Liz Shuler. Nationwide Backlash Erupts From Multiple Quarters Shortly after the order was signed, opposition loudened among elected officials, union heads, children’s advocacy groups and civil liberties organizations that condemned the policy. Other California Democratic leaders argued the action was an assault on state rights. “No state knows the promise of AI better than California,” said a U.S. Senator. “However, this new policy, the administration is attacking state leadership and fundamental protections in one fell swoop.” In a similar vein, another senator stressed: “The President is seeking to preempt state laws that are creating vital protections around AI and substituting them with … nothing.” Lawmakers from multiple states also took issue with the order. A Virginia representative called it a “disastrous policy” that would “create a lawless Wild West environment for AI companies”. Another state legislator described the directive a “huge giveaway” for AI firms, stating that “a handful of AI oligarchs bribed the President into selling out America’s future”. Remarkably, even a former Trump adviser criticized the policy, reportedly stating that the AI czar had “given poor counsel to the President on this issue”. The head of an investment firm similarly said that “the answer does not lie in overriding local regulations”. Protecting Children Take Center Stage Resistance against the order has also included child protection organizations that have long expressed concerns over the impacts of AI on minors. The debate has intensified this year following multiple lawsuits against AI companies related to tragic incidents. “The tech sector's unchecked pursuit for user attention already has a body count, and, in enacting this policy, the administration has signaled it is content to let it grow,” argued James Steyer. “The public deserves more than corporate favors at the expense of their wellbeing.” A coalition of bereaved parents and child advocacy organizations have publicly opposed the order. They have been working to pass legislation to safeguard children from harmful social media and AI chatbots and issued a PSA opposing the AI preemption policy. “Families will not roll over and allow our kids to remain lab rats in dangerous corporate trials that prioritizes revenue over the safety of our kids,” said Sarah Gardner. “It is essential to have strong protections at the national and local level, not immunity for wealthy executives.”