One of the most interventionist approaches to technology governance in a generation disguises itself as deregulation. In early December 2025, President Donald Trump announced a forthcoming “One Rule” executive order on artificial intelligence (AI) via Truth Social. Trump cautioned that U.S. leadership in AI faces destruction “in its infancy” due to the interference of “50 States, many of them bad actors, involved in RULES and the APPROVAL PROCESS.” However, this rhetoric masks a meaningful policy shift: the federal government will preempt state authority over AI governance, presented as a streamlining of regulations to foster American technological dominance.
The “One Rule” executive order aims to consolidate AI regulation under federal control, effectively limiting the ability of individual states to enact their own AI-specific laws. The management argues this centralization will accelerate innovation and prevent a fragmented regulatory landscape that coudl stifle growth. Critics, however, contend this move represents a substantial overreach of federal power and diminishes crucial safeguards against potential harms posed by AI technologies. They point to the diverse needs and concerns of different states, arguing a one-size-fits-all approach is inadequate.
This federal preemption builds on a trend of increasing federal involvement in technology regulation. While often framed as reducing burdens, such actions frequently establish new, centralized control mechanisms.The White House released a statement detailing its AI strategy in October 2023, outlining a vision for responsible AI development, but the “One Rule” order represents a more assertive step toward direct control.
The potential consequences of this policy are far-reaching. States like California and New York have been at the forefront of proposing thorough AI regulations, focusing on issues like algorithmic bias, data privacy, and transparency. These efforts would be curtailed under the new executive order. Proponents of state-level regulation argue that states can serve as “laboratories of democracy,” experimenting with different approaches and tailoring rules to their specific contexts. Brookings Institution analysis highlights the growing number of state-level AI bills introduced in recent years.
Legal challenges to the “One Rule” order are anticipated. Opponents will likely argue that the executive order exceeds the president’s authority and infringes upon states’ rights. The Supreme court’s interpretation of the Commerce Clause and the extent of federal preemption will be central to any legal battle. The outcome will significantly shape the future of AI governance in the United States, determining whether innovation is prioritized over localized control and consumer protection.
