Trump’s AI framework takes aim at state laws, shifting the burden of children’s safety to parents

The Trump administration on Friday laid out a legislative framework for a unique AI policy in the United States. This framework would centralize power in Washington by preempting state AI laws, potentially undermining the recent surge in efforts by states to regulate the use and development of the technology.

“This framework can only succeed if it is applied uniformly across the United States,” a White House statement about the framework said. “A patchwork of conflicting state laws would undermine American innovation and our ability to lead in the global AI race.”

The framework sets out seven key goals that prioritize innovation and scaling AI, and proposes a centralized federal approach that would go beyond more stringent state-level regulations. It places significant responsibility on parents regarding issues such as children’s safety, and sets relatively soft and non-binding expectations regarding platform accountability.

For example, it says Congress should require AI companies to implement features that “reduce the risks of sexual exploitation and harm to minors,” but it does not set any clear, enforceable requirements.

Trump’s framework comes three months after he signed an executive order directing federal agencies to challenge state AI laws. The order gave the Commerce Department 90 days to compile a list of “onerous” state AI laws, which could jeopardize states’ eligibility for federal funds such as broadband grants. The agency has not yet published this list.

The order also directed the administration to work with Congress on a unified artificial intelligence law. This vision has come into focus, and it mirrors Trump’s previous AI strategy, which focused less on guardrails and more on promoting corporate growth.

The new framework proposes a “minimally burdensome national standard,” which reflects the administration’s broader efforts to “remove outdated or unnecessary barriers to innovation” and accelerate the pace of AI adoption across industries. This is a light-hearted, pro-growth regulatory approach supported by “accelerators,” one of whom is the White House AI czar and venture capitalist David Sachs.

While the framework suggests federalism, state divisions are relatively narrow, retaining only authority over general laws such as fraud and child protection, zoning, and state use of artificial intelligence. He draws a hard line against states regulating the development of artificial intelligence itself, which he says is an “inherently cross-state” issue linked to national security and foreign policy.

The framework also seeks to prevent states from “punishment”.[ing] AI developers for illegal third-party behavior related to their models” – a key liability shield for developers.

This framework lacks any references towards liability frameworks, independent oversight, or enforcement mechanisms for potential new harms caused by AI. In effect, such a framework would centralize AI policymaking in Washington, while narrowing the scope for states to act as early regulators of emerging risks.

Critics say countries are sandboxes for democracy and have been quicker to pass laws on emerging risks. Notably, New York’s RAISE Act and California’s SB-53 seek to ensure that large AI companies have and adhere to publicly documented safety protocols.

“The White House’s AI czar, David Sachs, continues to do the bidding of big tech companies at the expense of ordinary, hard-working Americans,” said Brendan Steinhauser, CEO of the Safe AI Alliance. “This federal AI framework seeks to prevent states from legislating on AI and provides no path to holding AI developers accountable for the harms caused by their products.”

Many in the AI ​​industry are celebrating this trend because it gives them broader freedoms to “innovate” without the threat of regulation.

“This framework is exactly what startups have been asking for: a clear national standard so they can build quickly and at scale,” Teresa Carlson, president of the General Catalyst Institute, told TechCrunch. “Founders shouldn’t have to navigate a patchwork of conflicting state AI laws that stifle innovation.”

Child safety, copyright and freedom of expression

The framework was released at a time when child safety has emerged as a central flashpoint in the debate around artificial intelligence. Some states have moved aggressively to pass laws aimed at protecting minors and placing more responsibility on tech companies. The administration’s proposal points in a different direction, focusing more on parental controls rather than holding the platform accountable.

“Parents are better equipped to manage their children’s digital environment and upbringing,” the framework states. “The administration is calling on Congress to give parents the tools to do this effectively, such as account control to protect their children’s privacy and manage their device use.”

The framework also states that the administration “believes” that AI platforms should “implement features to reduce potential sexual exploitation of children and encouragement of self-harm.” While Congress calls for such safeguards and asserts that existing laws, including those prohibiting child sexual abuse material, should apply to AI systems, the proposal uses qualifications such as “commercially reasonable” and stops short of setting clear preconditions.

On the subject of copyright, the framework attempts to find a middle ground between protecting creators and allowing AI systems to train on existing works, noting the need for “fair use.” This kind of language reflects arguments made by AI companies as they face a growing number of copyright lawsuits over their training data.

The main barriers identified by Trump’s AI framework appear to include ensuring that “AI can pursue truth and accuracy without constraint.” Specifically, it focuses on preventing government-led censorship, rather than overseeing the platform itself.

“Congress must prevent the United States government from forcing technology providers, including AI providers, to block, coerce, or change content based on partisan or ideological agendas,” the framework reads. It also asks Congress to provide a means for Americans to pursue legal redress against government agencies that seek to censor expression on AI platforms or dictate the information provided by an AI platform.

The framing comes as Anthropic is suing the government for violating First Amendment rights after the Department of Defense (DOD) called it a supply chain risk. Anthropic argues that the Department of Defense designates it as such in retaliation for not allowing the military to use its AI products for mass surveillance of Americans or to make targeting and firing decisions with autonomous lethal weapons. Trump has referred to Anthropic and its CEO Dario Amodei as “woke” and “radical leftists.”

The framework’s language, which emphasizes protections for “lawful political expression or dissent,” appears to build on Trump’s previous executive order targeting “woke AI,” which pushed federal agencies to adopt systems deemed ideologically neutral.

It’s unclear what qualifies as censorship versus standard content moderation, so such language could make it difficult for regulators to coordinate with platforms on issues like misinformation, election interference, or public safety risks.

Sameer Jain, vice president for policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology, noted: “[The framework] He rightly says the government shouldn’t force AI companies to block or change content based on “partisan or ideological agendas,” but the administration’s “Wake Up AI” executive order this summer does just that.