★
Executive Orders Historical Archive
Cite
Executive Order 14365 🏛️✅ Zone 1: Maximum Authority Constitutional Fidelity (+0.23) 📜 5th Amend: Regulatory Execution with Due Process

Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

•
Thursday, December 11, 2025
•
7 min read (1,429 words)
•
90 Fed. Reg. 58499

Executive Brief • At a Glance

⏱️ 7 min read (1,429 words) • ● In Effect
🎯 Primary Mandate

Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall establish an AI Litigation Task Force (Task Force) whose sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws inconsistent with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order, including on grounds that such laws unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce, are preempted by existing Federal regulations, or are otherwise unlawful in the Attorney General's judgment, including, if appropriate, those laws identified pursuant to section 4 of this order.

⚖️ Constitutional Footing
🏛️✅ Zone 1: Maximum Authority
Express or Implied Congressional Authorization
📜 5th Amend: Regulatory Execution with Due Process
🏛️ Scope & Affected Sectors
Merchants, Importers & Commercial Enterprises Sovereign State Governments & Localities Executive Departments & Federal Civil Servants

Plain-English Translation & Framers' Constitutional Analysis

Early Statesman synthesis distilling legal jargon into practical meaning, statutory anchors, and structural constitutional impacts.

Signed by President Donald Trump on December 11, 2025, this order concerns Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence. United States leadership in Artificial Intelligence (AI) will promote United States national and economic security and dominance across many domains. Pursuant to Executive Order 14179 of January 23, 2025 (Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence), I revoked my predecessor's attempt to paralyze this industry and directed my Administration to remove barriers to United States AI leadership.

Constitutional Assessment: Evaluated against the Fifth Amendment, this action touches upon property or economic rights. An early statesman would insist upon strict adherence to due process of law and the constitutional guarantee that private holdings shall not be encumbered or taken for public purposes without just compensation and lawful process.

Key Directives & Operative Actions

▪
AI Litigation Task Force

Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall establish an AI Litigation Task Force (Task Force) whose sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws inconsistent with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order, including on grounds that such laws unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce, are preempted by existing Federal regulations, or are otherwise unlawful in the Attorney General's judgment, including, if appropriate, those laws identified pursuant to section 4 of this order.

▪
Evaluation of State AI Laws

Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, consistent with the Secretary's authorities under 47 U.S.C. 902(b) , shall, in consultation with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and the Assistant to the President and Counsel to the President, publish an evaluation of existing State AI laws that identifies onerous laws that conflict with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order, as well as laws that should be referred to the Task Force established pursuant to section 3 of this order.

▪
Federal Reporting and Disclosure Standard

Within 90 days of the publication of the identification specified in section 4 of this order, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission shall, in consultation with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, initiate a proceeding to determine whether to adopt a Federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that preempts conflicting State laws.

▪
Legislation

The Special Advisor for AI and Crypto and the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology shall jointly prepare a legislative recommendation establishing a uniform Federal policy framework for AI that preempts State AI laws that conflict with the policy set forth in this order.

Constitutional & Societal Entities Impacted

🏛️ Merchants, Importers & Commercial Enterprises 🏛️ Sovereign State Governments & Localities 🏛️ Executive Departments & Federal Civil Servants
🏛️

The Framers' Constitutional Council

1787 Prism

Evaluating this order against the constitutional debates of 1787 and the limits of Article II executive power.

🏛️✅ Zone 1 (Maximum Authority)
§

"When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate."

— Justice Robert H. Jackson, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) Express or Implied Congressional Authorization
JM

James Madison

Separation of Powers & Legislative Primacy

"The constitutional magistracy was designed not to invent policy, but to be the faithful instrument of the laws passed by the people's representatives." — Speech in the First Congress (1789)

Madison would approve the structural posture of this order. The President acts strictly in subordination to statutory authority granted under Article II, Section 3 ("take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"). The checks and balances hold firm because the policy origin remains with the legislature.

Madisonian Stance: Concurring (Statutory)
AH

Alexander Hamilton

The Energetic Executive & Unified Command

"A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government." — Federalist No. 70 (1788)

Hamilton would view this directive as the natural and indispensable functioning of administrative leadership. Without the power to coordinate agencies, manage personnel, and resolve operational ambiguities, the modern presidency would be reduced to an impotent figurehead.

Hamiltonian Stance: Supportive of Execution
GM

George Mason

Bill of Rights, Due Process & 10th Amendment

"The purse and the sword ought never to be in the same hands... nor the liberties of the citizen placed at the pleasure of a single magistrate." — Virginia Ratifying Convention (1788)

George Mason and the Anti-Federalists would sound a fierce warning. They feared that Article II would inevitably evolve into an elective monarchy. When an executive order impacts private rights, property, or civil liberties without individualized judicial process, Mason would see their darkest predictions verified.

Anti-Federalist Stance: High Bill of Rights Scrutiny
📐

Five Measurable "Constitutional Friction" Dimensions

An objective audit measuring potential separation-of-powers tension against the United States Constitution and established Supreme Court doctrine.

⚖️ Discretionary Twilight Zone
62 / 100 friction index
Dimension 1 • Art. I, §1 & §8

Legislative Encroachment & Purse

High Friction

Touches upon core congressional prerogatives: raises appropriations reallocation, tariff imposition, or statutory preemption questions.

Benchmark: Power of the purse, taxes/tariffs, and rule of law reserved to Congress.
Dimension 2 • Art. II, §1 & §3

Executive Scope & Faithfulness

Moderate Friction

Directs internal executive branch machinery, agency workflows, and federal personnel.

Benchmark: Faithfully execute laws enacted by Congress vs. unilateral decree.
Dimension 3 • 10th Amendment

Federalism & State Sovereignty

High Friction

Creates friction with the Tenth Amendment by conditioning state grants, mandating local compliance, or preempting state police powers.

Benchmark: Police powers and un-delegated responsibilities reserved to the States.
Dimension 4 • 5th & 14th Amendments

Due Process & Individual Rights

High Friction

Scrutinized under the Bill of Rights for potential impact on private contracts, property rights, or procedural due process.

Benchmark: Protection of private property, contracts, liberty, and procedural justice.
Dimension 5 • Separation of Powers

Youngstown Jacksonian Tier

Low Friction

The President operates strictly as the constitutional Chief Executive, carrying out policy established by Congress with strong statutory backing.

Benchmark: Express or Implied Congressional Authorization
⚖️ Audit Synthesis

This order operates within Justice Jackson’s Zone of Twilight, resting upon concurrent presidential authority or congressional silence.

Weighted composite: Art. I (25%), Art. II (25%), Federalism (15%), Due Process (15%), Youngstown (20%).
ℹ️
How to read these dimensions: Executive power expands whenever an administration acts without explicit statutory authorization from Congress (Article I), touches upon police powers historically reserved to the states (Tenth Amendment), or limits private rights and property without judicial process. A low friction score indicates strict concordance with enacted law; a high friction score highlights orders testing the limits of presidential discretion.
Total Words
1,429
9,155 characters
Estimated Read Time
7 min
@ 200 words / min
Flesch-Kincaid
17.8
Post-Graduate Legal
Language Tone Score
+0.23
Constitutional Fidelity
How is this scored?
Text size:

Official Archival Text

View Source Document
FR Page 58499

Executive Order 14365 of December 11, 2025 Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1 . #sec-1

Purpose. United States leadership in Artificial Intelligence (AI) will promote United States national and economic security and dominance across many domains. Pursuant to Executive Order 14179 of January 23, 2025 (Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence), I revoked my predecessor's attempt to paralyze this industry and directed my Administration to remove barriers to United States AI leadership. My Administration has already done tremendous work to advance that objective, including by updating existing Federal regulatory frameworks to remove barriers to and encourage adoption of AI applications across sectors. These efforts have already delivered tremendous benefits to the American people and led to trillions of dollars of investments across the country. But we remain in the earliest days of this technological revolution and are in a race with adversaries for supremacy within it. To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation. But excessive State regulation thwarts this imperative. First, State-by-State regulation by definition creates a patchwork of 50 different regulatory regimes that makes compliance more challenging, particularly for start-ups. Second, State laws are increasingly responsible for requiring entities to embed ideological bias within models. For example, a new Colorado law banning “algorithmic discrimination” may even force AI models to produce false results in order to avoid a “differential treatment or impact” on protected groups. Third, State laws sometimes impermissibly regulate beyond State borders, impinging on interstate commerce. My Administration must act with the Congress to ensure that there is a minimally burdensome national standard—not 50 discordant State ones. The resulting framework must forbid State laws that conflict with the policy set forth in this order. That framework should also ensure that children are protected, censorship is prevented, copyrights are respected, and communities are safeguarded. A carefully crafted national framework can ensure that the United States wins the AI race, as we must. Until such a national standard exists, however, it is imperative that my Administration takes action to check the most onerous and excessive laws emerging from the States that threaten to stymie innovation.

Sec. 2 . #sec-2

Policy. It 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.

Sec. 3 . #sec-3

AI Litigation Task Force. Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall establish an AI Litigation Task Force (Task Force) whose sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws inconsistent with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order, including on grounds that such laws unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce, are preempted by existing Federal regulations, or are otherwise unlawful in the Attorney General's judgment, including, if appropriate, those laws identified pursuant to section 4 of this order. The Task Force shall consult from time to time with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, the Assistant

FR Page 58500

to the President for Science and Technology, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and the Assistant to the President and Counsel to the President regarding the emergence of specific State AI laws that warrant challenge.

Sec. 4 . #sec-4

Evaluation of State AI Laws. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, consistent with the Secretary's authorities under 47 U.S.C. 902(b) , shall, in consultation with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and the Assistant to the President and Counsel to the President, publish an evaluation of existing State AI laws that identifies onerous laws that conflict with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order, as well as laws that should be referred to the Task Force established pursuant to section 3 of this order. That evaluation of State AI laws shall, at a minimum, identify laws that require AI models to alter their truthful outputs, or that may compel AI developers or deployers to disclose or report information in a manner that would violate the First Amendment or any other provision of the Constitution. The evaluation may additionally identify State laws that promote AI innovation consistent with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order.

Sec. 5 . #sec-5

Restrictions on State Funding. (a) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, through the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, shall issue a Policy Notice specifying the conditions under which States may be eligible for remaining funding under the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program that was saved through my Administration's “Benefit of the Bargain” reforms, consistent with 47 U.S.C. 1702(e)-(f) . That Policy Notice must provide that States with onerous AI laws identified pursuant to section 4 of this order are ineligible for non-deployment funds, to the maximum extent allowed by Federal law. The Policy Notice must also describe how a fragmented State regulatory landscape for AI threatens to undermine BEAD-funded deployments, the growth of AI applications reliant on high-speed networks, and BEAD's mission of delivering universal, high-speed connectivity. (b) Executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall assess their discretionary grant programs in consultation with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto and determine whether agencies may condition such grants on States either not enacting an AI law that conflicts with the policy of this order, including any AI law identified pursuant to section 4 or challenged pursuant to section 3 of this order, or, for those States that have enacted such laws, on those States entering into a binding agreement with the relevant agency not to enforce any such laws during the performance period in which it receives the discretionary funding.

Sec. 6 . #sec-6

Federal Reporting and Disclosure Standard. Within 90 days of the publication of the identification specified in section 4 of this order, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission shall, in consultation with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, initiate a proceeding to determine whether to adopt a Federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that preempts conflicting State laws.

Sec. 7 . #sec-7

Preemption of State Laws Mandating Deceptive Conduct in AI Models. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission shall, in consultation with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, issue a policy statement on the application of the Federal Trade Commission Act's prohibition on unfair and deceptive acts or practices under 15 U.S.C. 45 to AI models. That policy statement must explain the circumstances under which State laws that require alterations to the truthful outputs of AI models are preempted by the Federal Trade Commission Act's prohibition on engaging in deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce.

FR Page 58501

Sec. 8 . #sec-8

Legislation. (a) The Special Advisor for AI and Crypto and the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology shall jointly prepare a legislative recommendation establishing a uniform Federal policy framework for AI that preempts State AI laws that conflict with the policy set forth in this order. (b) The legislative recommendation called for in subsection (a) of this section shall not propose preempting otherwise lawful State AI laws relating to: (i) child safety protections; (ii) AI compute and data center infrastructure, other than generally applicable permitting reforms; (iii) State government procurement and use of AI; and (iv) other topics as shall be determined.

Sec. 9 . #sec-9

General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. (d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Commerce.

THE WHITE HOUSE, #signature

December 11, 2025.

🏛️Official NARA Filing:FR Doc. 2025-23092 Filed 12-15-25; 11:15 am
Billing Codes: 3510-DT-P
📜

Scholarly & Legal Citations

Exec. Order No. 14,365, 90 Fed. Reg. 58,499 (Dec. 11, 2025).