Trump Declares AI War: One Rulebook for America, States Revolt

Paul Riverbank, 12/9/2025Trump’s AI order sparks fierce national vs. state battle—Big Tech cheers, states revolt, legal fights loom.

Trump didn’t bury the lede. “There must be only One Rulebook if we are going to continue to lead in AI,” he posted on Truth Social, in a tone that felt less presidential decree, more urgent memo from the boss. To his mind, letting each state scribble its own guidelines is a recipe for disaster—imagine fifty different sets of road rules and drivers barreling along the information superhighway. “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, involved in RULES and the APPROVAL PROCESS,” he declared, never shy about capital letters.

His team’s frustration isn’t unfounded. There’s been no shortage of drama on Capitol Hill, with serious proposals for a country-wide moratorium on state laws falling flat—some torpedoed by “local values” arguments, others simply lost to the tides of election-year squabbling. Even within the president’s own party, unity has been elusive. Republican pushback to federal control has come from voices like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who’s been unmoved by Silicon Valley’s warnings, hammering on the notion that “local leaders know their people best.” That message wasn’t enough to break the logjam or bring about a federal consensus.

Inside the administration, the charge for a uniform AI rulebook has been quietly simmering for a while. David Sacks—the White House’s chosen AI and Crypto Czar—has been the steady hand behind the president, talking tech and regulations with CEOs who, until quite recently, barely paid attention to bureaucratic footwork in Washington. Among those singing the same note: Sam Altman from OpenAI, who has cautioned that regulatory confusion “could slow down innovation,” and Jensen Huang, Nvidia’s chief, who practically rolled his eyes at the idea of “getting 50 Approvals every time they want to do something.”

And yet, the White House order that now sits ready for Trump’s pen would do far more than streamline paperwork. It calls for a “minimally burdensome, uniform national policy framework for AI”—bureaucratic language, yes, but one carrying teeth. The order gives the attorney general power to assemble an AI Litigation Task Force, primed to challenge state-level laws that, in the administration’s view, overstep or threaten federal prerogatives, especially where interstate commerce is at stake.

Supporters, naturally, see this as pragmatism over parochialism. Big Tech has lined up in approval, with Google’s Sundar Pichai raising the specter of competing with China under the weight of sprawling, conflicting state requirements. It’s not a hard point to grasp: More than a thousand state bills were drawn up this year alone on everything from deepfakes to data privacy, and tech companies are barely keeping up as it is.

Yet if you pop your head into state capitals or scroll through statements from governors and advocacy groups, the mood shifts. “Stripping states of jurisdiction to regulate AI is a subsidy to Big Tech and will prevent states from protecting against online censorship of political speech, predatory applications that target children, violations of intellectual property rights and data center intrusions on power/water resources,” warned Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in a statement that bristled with distrust.

Consumer advocates and tech worker organizations are just as skeptical, raising alarms about giving Silicon Valley a blank check. One voice, Sacha Haworth of The Tech Oversight Project, summed it up this way: “We cannot afford to spend the next decade with Big Tech in the driver’s seat, steering us toward massive job losses, surveillance pricing algorithms that jack up the cost of living, and data centers that are skyrocketing home energy bills.” It’s the older American fear: that decisions made in distant boardrooms—and even more distant cities—leave people powerless at home.

There’s another layer to this. Several states have already passed their own rules, focusing on issues like facial recognition in policing or algorithmic hiring biases, and say their local knowledge informs these targeted laws. For some, the notion that Washington could flatten those differences with one stroke is more than unpalatable—it’s a violation of federalist tradition.

If the president signs on, don’t expect peace. The order is almost certain to be met with legal challenges; state attorneys general are already preparing. The arguments will run deep into constitutional territory, testing whether the federal government has overreached or whether the modern economy—and with it, technological change—demands a national standard for technologies that ignore state borders.

The stakes are unmistakably high, and the consequences will ripple far beyond the Beltway. America could cement its leadership in AI or wind up throttling it with courtroom gridlock, fragmentation, or, on the other hand, risky deregulation. The verdict, when it comes, will decide not just which companies write the code, but who really shapes the next era of digital life in the United States. For now, the White House has cast its lot—and all sides are bracing for what comes next.

America is facing a fork in the road, one rooted not in ideology or campaign slogans, but in something as slippery as it is consequential: who actually gets to decide the future of artificial intelligence. For months, as lawmakers argued and ambitious bills fizzled, Congress left a vacuum. Now, President Trump—never one for subtlety—has tried to fill it, slamming his stake in the ground for a nationwide approach and brushing aside the state-by-state patchwork that’s been gathering momentum.Trump didn’t bury the lede. “There must be only One Rulebook if we are going to continue to lead in AI,” he posted on Truth Social, in a tone that felt less presidential decree, more urgent memo from the boss. To his mind, letting each state scribble its own guidelines is a recipe for disaster—imagine fifty different sets of road rules and drivers barreling along the information superhighway. “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, involved in RULES and the APPROVAL PROCESS,” he declared, never shy about capital letters.His team’s frustration isn’t unfounded. There’s been no shortage of drama on Capitol Hill, with serious proposals for a country-wide moratorium on state laws falling flat—some torpedoed by “local values” arguments, others simply lost to the tides of election-year squabbling. Even within the president’s own party, unity has been elusive. Republican pushback to federal control has come from voices like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who’s been unmoved by Silicon Valley’s warnings, hammering on the notion that “local leaders know their people best.” That message wasn’t enough to break the logjam or bring about a federal consensus.Inside the administration, the charge for a uniform AI rulebook has been quietly simmering for a while. David Sacks—the White House’s chosen AI and Crypto Czar—has been the steady hand behind the president, talking tech and regulations with CEOs who, until quite recently, barely paid attention to bureaucratic footwork in Washington. Among those singing the same note: Sam Altman from OpenAI, who has cautioned that regulatory confusion “could slow down innovation,” and Jensen Huang, Nvidia’s chief, who practically rolled his eyes at the idea of “getting 50 Approvals every time they want to do something.”And yet, the White House order that now sits ready for Trump’s pen would do far more than streamline paperwork. It calls for a “minimally burdensome, uniform national policy framework for AI”—bureaucratic language, yes, but one carrying teeth. The order gives the attorney general power to assemble an AI Litigation Task Force, primed to challenge state-level laws that, in the administration’s view, overstep or threaten federal prerogatives, especially where interstate commerce is at stake.Supporters, naturally, see this as pragmatism over parochialism. Big Tech has lined up in approval, with Google’s Sundar Pichai raising the specter of competing with China under the weight of sprawling, conflicting state requirements. It’s not a hard point to grasp: More than a thousand state bills were drawn up this year alone on everything from deepfakes to data privacy, and tech companies are barely keeping up as it is.Yet if you pop your head into state capitals or scroll through statements from governors and advocacy groups, the mood shifts. “Stripping states of jurisdiction to regulate AI is a subsidy to Big Tech and will prevent states from protecting against online censorship of political speech, predatory applications that target children, violations of intellectual property rights and data center intrusions on power/water resources,” warned Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in a statement that bristled with distrust.Consumer advocates and tech worker organizations are just as skeptical, raising alarms about giving Silicon Valley a blank check. One voice, Sacha Haworth of The Tech Oversight Project, summed it up this way: “We cannot afford to spend the next decade with Big Tech in the driver’s seat, steering us toward massive job losses, surveillance pricing algorithms that jack up the cost of living, and data centers that are skyrocketing home energy bills.” It’s the older American fear: that decisions made in distant boardrooms—and even more distant cities—leave people powerless at home.There’s another layer to this. Several states have already passed their own rules, focusing on issues like facial recognition in policing or algorithmic hiring biases, and say their local knowledge informs these targeted laws. For some, the notion that Washington could flatten those differences with one stroke is more than unpalatable—it’s a violation of federalist tradition.If the president signs on, don’t expect peace. The order is almost certain to be met with legal challenges; state attorneys general are already preparing. The arguments will run deep into constitutional territory, testing whether the federal government has overreached or whether the modern economy—and with it, technological change—demands a national standard for technologies that ignore state borders.The stakes are unmistakably high, and the consequences will ripple far beyond the Beltway. America could cement its leadership in AI or wind up throttling it with courtroom gridlock, fragmentation, or, on the other hand, risky deregulation. The verdict, when it comes, will decide not just which companies write the code, but who really shapes the next era of digital life in the United States. For now, the White House has cast its lot—and all sides are bracing for what comes next.