White House Proposes National AI Policy Framework
Commentary by Vijay Dewan
The White House recommended a comprehensive set of legislative measures to address regulatory fragmentation and establish a national framework for artificial intelligence ("AI").
In its national AI policy framework, the White House outlined recommendations across seven areas:
- Protecting Children and Empowering Parents. The White House outlined measures to safeguard minors and strengthen parental control, including: (i) building on the Take It Down Act to address deepfake abuse; (ii) equipping parents with tools to manage privacy, screen time, and content exposure; (iii) establishing privacy-protective, commercially reasonable age-assurance requirements; (iv) requiring features to mitigate risks of sexual exploitation and self-harm; and (v) affirming that existing child privacy protections apply to AI systems. It also cautioned against ambiguous content standards that could spur excessive litigation and emphasized that federal law should not preempt generally applicable state child protection laws.
- Safeguarding and Strengthening American Communities. The White House recommended supporting AI infrastructure development to promote economic growth while protecting communities, including: (i) ensuring residential electricity costs do not increase due to AI data center development, consistent with the Ratepayer Protection Pledge; (ii) streamlining federal permitting to accelerate infrastructure buildout, including on-site and behind-the-meter power generation; (iii) strengthening law enforcement to combat AI-enabled fraud and impersonation; (iv) ensuring national security agencies have the technical capacity to assess frontier AI risks; and (v) providing grants, tax incentives, and technical assistance to support small business adoption of AI.
- Respecting Intellectual Property Rights and Supporting Creators. The White House expressed the view that training AI models on copyrighted material does not violate copyright law, while supporting judicial resolution of the issue. It recommended exploring collective licensing or compensation frameworks for rights holders that avoid antitrust liability, and considering federal protections against unauthorized commercial use of AI-generated digital replicas, with appropriate First Amendment safeguards. It also emphasized monitoring judicial developments to assess whether further legislative action is needed.
- Preventing Censorship and Protecting Free Speech. The White House urged Congress to prohibit federal coercion of technology and AI providers to restrict lawful political expression and to establish mechanisms for individuals to seek redress for government-driven censorship. It emphasized the importance of safeguarding First Amendment protections in the development and deployment of AI systems.
- Enabling Innovation and Ensuring American AI Dominance. The White House recommended reducing barriers to AI innovation by: (i) establishing regulatory sandboxes to support testing and deployment of AI applications; (ii) making federal datasets available in AI-ready formats to industry and academia; and (iii) relying on existing sector-specific regulators and industry-led standards rather than creating a new federal AI rulemaking body.
- Educating Americans and Developing an AI-Ready Workforce. The White House called for (i) incorporating AI training into existing education, workforce, and apprenticeship programs through non-regulatory approaches; (ii) expanding federal research on AI-driven workforce realignment; and (iii) supporting land-grant institutions in delivering technical assistance, demonstration projects, and youth development initiatives.
- Establishing a Unified Federal Framework. The White House recommended preempting unduly burdensome state AI laws to avoid a fragmented regulatory landscape, while preserving state authority over general police powers, zoning, and public-sector AI use. It emphasized that states should not regulate AI development or unduly restrict lawful uses of AI, given its interstate and national security implications, and highlighted the need to align federal policy with national competitiveness and global AI leadership objectives.
Commentary
The framework gets two structural choices right. Routing AI oversight through existing sector-specific regulators rather than creating a new federal agency reflects a sound instinct: AI is not a standalone industry but a capability that cuts across every regulated sector, and agencies such as the SEC and FDA understand the markets and products they oversee better than any new super-regulator could. The White House is also right that a patchwork of fifty state regimes would create an incoherent compliance landscape for a technology that does not respect state borders. Regulatory sandboxes may have value, but only as a tool for informed supervision, not as a substitute for it. But that approach works only if regulators actually understand how these systems behave, and the framework’s own call for greater technical capacity inside the national security enterprise is an implicit admission that some may not.
But the central tension that became evident when the House Financial Services Committee considered this same question in December remains unresolved: preemption without a substantive federal standard is not harmonization; it is a vacuum. The framework recommends preempting state AI laws while simultaneously declining to create any new federal rulemaking body, signaling hostility to open-ended liability and deferring the hardest questions, including copyright, to the courts. Congress cannot clear the field and then leave it empty. AI systems are statistical engines that can discriminate without animus, deceive without awareness, and cause harm without malice. To replace state laws with a federal standard that works, Congress must invest in the technical capacity that makes meaningful oversight possible.
Related Articles
-
President Trump issued an Executive Order directing federal agencies to challenge state AI laws deemed inconsistent with national AI policy and to develop a legislative framework that would preempt conflicting state regulations.
-
At a House Financial Services Committee hearing on proposed AI legislation, lawmakers considered whether a unified federal framework was needed to preempt conflicting state laws, and deliberated over proposed legislation to create AI "regulatory sandboxes".