🔗 Share this article Gavin Newsom Fires Back on Trump's Artificial Intelligence Decree Seeking to Preempting Local Regulations. Scarcely had the ink dried on Donald Trump's sweeping AI policy directive when the California governor issued a forceful rebuttal. Shortly following the decree was released on Thursday evening, Newsom issued a statement contending that the presidential dictum, which aims to prevent states from crafting their own AI rules, promotes “corruption and self-dealing” instead of genuine innovation. “The administration and its adviser aren’t making policy – they are executing a scheme,” the governor stated, mentioning the President's technology czar. “Day after day, they test boundaries to see what they can get away with.” A Major Victory for Silicon Valley Creates a Legal Showdown The presidential directive is seen as a major victory for technology companies that have lobbied vigorously against legislative barriers to creating and launching their AI products. Furthermore, it sets up a looming clash between state governments and the White House over the direction of artificial intelligence governance. The immediate backlash from organizations such as children's welfare groups, unions, and state officials has highlighted the deeply contentious nature of the order. A number of leaders and organizations have raised doubts about the constitutionality of the executive order, arguing that the President lacks the power to undermine local laws on AI and labeling the decree as the result of powerful corporate influence. California, the base for many prominent AI companies and one of the most prolific legislators on AI policy, has become a primary hub for pushback against the order. “This directive is profoundly flawed, grossly unethical, and will actually hinder progress and weaken public trust in the long run,” remarked a lawmaker from California, Sara Jacobs. “We are examining every option – from the courts to Congress – to overturn this policy.” A Policy Standoff and Potential Legal Duel In September, Newsom enacted a pioneering artificial intelligence act that would require developers of advanced "frontier" AI systems to disclose safety data and immediately notify authorities of critical failures or risk penalties up to $1 million. Newsom championed this legislation as a blueprint for governing the tech sector across the country. “California's position as a worldwide innovator in tech provides a unique opportunity to establish a framework for well-balanced AI policies beyond our borders,” Newsom stated in an speech. “This is particularly vital given the lack of a national regulatory framework.” The recent state law and additional pending regulations could now be in Trump’s crosshairs. Thursday’s executive order establishes an legal review panel that would scrutinize local regulations deemed not to “bolster the United States’ competitive edge” and then initiate lawsuits or threaten to cut government grants. Opponents contend that the White House has failed to deliver any cohesive national plan to replace the local rules it seeks to block. “President Trump’s unlawful executive order is simply a brazen effort to dismantle safeguards and grant powerful executives unchecked power over employment, freedoms and livelihoods,” said a major labor leader, one critic. Broad Opposition Erupts From Multiple Quarters Shortly after the order was signed, opposition loudened among elected officials, union heads, children’s advocacy groups and rights groups that decried the policy. State officials said the action was an assault on local autonomy. “No state understands the potential of AI better than California,” said Alex Padilla. “But with today’s executive order, the White House is undermining local initiative and basic safeguards in one fell swoop.” In a similar vein, another senator emphasized: “The President is attempting to override state laws that are establishing meaningful safeguards around AI and substituting them with … a void.” Officials from Colorado to Virginia to New York also took issue with the order. One congressmember called it a “terrible idea” that would “create a unregulated landscape for AI companies”. A New York assemblymember called the order a “massive windfall” for AI firms, stating that “a few powerful executives bribed the President into selling out America’s future”. Remarkably, even Steve Bannon criticized the policy, reportedly stating that the President's adviser had “given poor counsel to the President on this issue”. The head of an investment firm echoed that “the solution is not overriding local regulations”. Child Safety Concerns Take Center Stage Resistance against the order has also included child protection organizations that have repeatedly warned over the effects of AI on minors. This discussion has intensified this year following legal actions against AI companies concerning tragic incidents. “The tech sector's unchecked pursuit for user attention has already led to loss of life, and, in enacting this policy, the White House has made clear it is content to let it grow,” argued the head of a child advocacy group. “Americans deserve better than tech industry handouts at the expense of their wellbeing.” A group of bereaved parents and child advocacy organizations have publicly opposed the order. They have been working to pass legislation to better protect children from harmful social media and AI chatbots and issued a PSA opposing the federal override. “Parents will not roll over and allow our children to remain test subjects in dangerous corporate trials that prioritizes revenue over the safety of our kids,” declared one coalition CEO. “It is essential to have robust safeguards at the national and local level, not immunity for wealthy executives.”
Scarcely had the ink dried on Donald Trump's sweeping AI policy directive when the California governor issued a forceful rebuttal. Shortly following the decree was released on Thursday evening, Newsom issued a statement contending that the presidential dictum, which aims to prevent states from crafting their own AI rules, promotes “corruption and self-dealing” instead of genuine innovation. “The administration and its adviser aren’t making policy – they are executing a scheme,” the governor stated, mentioning the President's technology czar. “Day after day, they test boundaries to see what they can get away with.” A Major Victory for Silicon Valley Creates a Legal Showdown The presidential directive is seen as a major victory for technology companies that have lobbied vigorously against legislative barriers to creating and launching their AI products. Furthermore, it sets up a looming clash between state governments and the White House over the direction of artificial intelligence governance. The immediate backlash from organizations such as children's welfare groups, unions, and state officials has highlighted the deeply contentious nature of the order. A number of leaders and organizations have raised doubts about the constitutionality of the executive order, arguing that the President lacks the power to undermine local laws on AI and labeling the decree as the result of powerful corporate influence. California, the base for many prominent AI companies and one of the most prolific legislators on AI policy, has become a primary hub for pushback against the order. “This directive is profoundly flawed, grossly unethical, and will actually hinder progress and weaken public trust in the long run,” remarked a lawmaker from California, Sara Jacobs. “We are examining every option – from the courts to Congress – to overturn this policy.” A Policy Standoff and Potential Legal Duel In September, Newsom enacted a pioneering artificial intelligence act that would require developers of advanced "frontier" AI systems to disclose safety data and immediately notify authorities of critical failures or risk penalties up to $1 million. Newsom championed this legislation as a blueprint for governing the tech sector across the country. “California's position as a worldwide innovator in tech provides a unique opportunity to establish a framework for well-balanced AI policies beyond our borders,” Newsom stated in an speech. “This is particularly vital given the lack of a national regulatory framework.” The recent state law and additional pending regulations could now be in Trump’s crosshairs. Thursday’s executive order establishes an legal review panel that would scrutinize local regulations deemed not to “bolster the United States’ competitive edge” and then initiate lawsuits or threaten to cut government grants. Opponents contend that the White House has failed to deliver any cohesive national plan to replace the local rules it seeks to block. “President Trump’s unlawful executive order is simply a brazen effort to dismantle safeguards and grant powerful executives unchecked power over employment, freedoms and livelihoods,” said a major labor leader, one critic. Broad Opposition Erupts From Multiple Quarters Shortly after the order was signed, opposition loudened among elected officials, union heads, children’s advocacy groups and rights groups that decried the policy. State officials said the action was an assault on local autonomy. “No state understands the potential of AI better than California,” said Alex Padilla. “But with today’s executive order, the White House is undermining local initiative and basic safeguards in one fell swoop.” In a similar vein, another senator emphasized: “The President is attempting to override state laws that are establishing meaningful safeguards around AI and substituting them with … a void.” Officials from Colorado to Virginia to New York also took issue with the order. One congressmember called it a “terrible idea” that would “create a unregulated landscape for AI companies”. A New York assemblymember called the order a “massive windfall” for AI firms, stating that “a few powerful executives bribed the President into selling out America’s future”. Remarkably, even Steve Bannon criticized the policy, reportedly stating that the President's adviser had “given poor counsel to the President on this issue”. The head of an investment firm echoed that “the solution is not overriding local regulations”. Child Safety Concerns Take Center Stage Resistance against the order has also included child protection organizations that have repeatedly warned over the effects of AI on minors. This discussion has intensified this year following legal actions against AI companies concerning tragic incidents. “The tech sector's unchecked pursuit for user attention has already led to loss of life, and, in enacting this policy, the White House has made clear it is content to let it grow,” argued the head of a child advocacy group. “Americans deserve better than tech industry handouts at the expense of their wellbeing.” A group of bereaved parents and child advocacy organizations have publicly opposed the order. They have been working to pass legislation to better protect children from harmful social media and AI chatbots and issued a PSA opposing the federal override. “Parents will not roll over and allow our children to remain test subjects in dangerous corporate trials that prioritizes revenue over the safety of our kids,” declared one coalition CEO. “It is essential to have robust safeguards at the national and local level, not immunity for wealthy executives.”