President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at creating a unified national approach to AI regulation, directing federal agencies to challenge state-level AI laws. The order, titled “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” claims that AI is inherently interstate commerce and should be governed at the federal level, not by individual states. It tasks the Department of Justice with forming a task force within 30 days to identify and contest state laws it deems inconsistent with federal authority. The Commerce Department has 90 days to compile a list of what it calls “onerous” state AI regulations, which could impact states’ access to federal funding, including broadband grants. The order also instructs the FTC and FCC to explore federal standards that could override state rules and calls on the administration to work with Congress to develop a comprehensive national AI law. The move comes amid stalled efforts in Congress to pass a federal AI framework, leaving a growing number of states to act independently. While some lawmakers argue that state laws are necessary to protect consumers, others warn that a patchwork of regulations hampers innovation and creates compliance burdens. Legal experts and startup leaders, however, say the executive order may do more harm than good. Rather than resolving uncertainty, it could trigger prolonged legal battles, leaving startups in a state of regulatory limbo. With no new federal law in place, state laws remain enforceable until courts rule on their constitutionality, creating a high-stakes environment for young companies. Michael Kleinman of the Future of Life Institute criticized the order as favoring large tech companies, calling it a “gift for Silicon Valley oligarchs” that shields them from accountability. The order is closely tied to David Sacks, Trump’s AI and crypto policy czar, who has been a key architect of the preemption push. Even supporters of a national standard acknowledge the order doesn’t create one. Sean Fitzpatrick of LexisNexis predicted that states will defend their authority in court, likely leading to Supreme Court cases. The legal uncertainty, he said, could slow innovation and increase compliance costs. Startups, which often lack the resources to build robust regulatory teams, are especially vulnerable. Hart Brown, who advised Oklahoma’s AI task force, noted that smaller companies struggle to keep up with a rapidly evolving regulatory landscape. Arul Nigam of Circuit Breaker Labs, which tests AI chatbots for safety, said the lack of clarity makes it hard to know whether to self-regulate, follow open-source standards, or continue building. Andrew Gamino-Cheong of Trustible warned the order could backfire, benefiting large firms with deep legal teams while hurting startups that can’t afford to hedge their bets. He added that uncertainty undermines trust in AI, making it harder to sell to regulated industries like finance, healthcare, and law. Gary Kibel of Davis + Gilbert said while a single national standard is desirable, an executive order isn’t the right tool to override democratically enacted state laws. He cautioned that the current situation could lead to either overregulation or a regulatory vacuum—both of which could favor big players. Morgan Reed of The App Association urged Congress to act quickly, calling for a “comprehensive, targeted, and risk-based” national framework. “A patchwork of state laws is bad,” she said, “but a drawn-out court fight over an executive order isn’t any better.”