White House Releases National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

By Emily Statham, Tony Caldwell, Derek Flint, and Jason Spitalnick

On March 20, 2026, the White House released the National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence: Legislative Recommendations (the “AI Framework”), which outlines the Trump Administration’s policy recommendations to guide Congress in developing a unified federal approach to artificial intelligence (AI) legislation and regulation. Although the AI Framework is non-binding and does not by itself impose new legal obligations or direct agencies to take specific regulatory actions, it does set forth a series of recommended policy approaches for congressional consideration. The AI Framework is consistent with the Trump Administration’s AI policy to date: emphasizing sustaining and enhancing U.S. global AI dominance, preventing state-level AI regulatory fragmentation, and creating a national standard governing AI proliferation.

Background

The AI Framework is the latest in a series of executive actions through which the Trump Administration has articulated its approach to AI governance. On January 20, 2025, the Trump Administration revoked former Biden Administration Executive Order 14110 on the “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence,” which had emphasized oversight, risk mitigation, and equity in AI governance. Three days later, on January 23, 2025, the Trump Administration signed Executive Order 14179, “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence,” which established the policy of sustaining and enhancing U.S. global AI dominance and directed the development of an AI Action Plan.

The Trump Administration subsequently released its AI Action Plan in July 2025, which called for a national, innovation-focused AI framework and warned that state regulatory regimes create regulatory fragmentation. In July 2025, the Trump Administration also signed an executive order on “Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government” and, in the same month, signed executive orders accelerating federal permitting of data center infrastructure and promoting the export of the American AI technology stack.

On December 11, 2025, the Trump Administration signed an executive order on “Ensuring a National Policy AI Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” which committed the Trump Administration to working with Congress to develop a federal legislative framework that would replace most categories of state-level AI laws with a unified national standard. That same executive order established the DOJ AI Litigation Task Force to challenge state AI laws.

Key Elements of the AI Framework

Viewed in this context, the AI Framework represents a natural extension of the Trump Administration’s consistent emphasis on AI deregulation, federal preemption of state AI laws, and the promotion of U.S. AI competitiveness. It also adds more AI substance around child safety, intellectual property, workforce development, and infrastructure — areas that earlier executive actions addressed at a higher level or not at all. The AI Framework is organized around seven key objectives, described below.

I. Protecting Children and Empowering Parents

The AI Framework places significant emphasis on protecting minors from AI-related harms and empowering parents to manage their children’s digital environments. It recommends that Congress empower parents and guardians with tools to manage their children’s privacy settings, screen time, content exposure, and account controls. It also calls on Congress to establish commercially reasonable, privacy-protective age-assurance requirements, such as parental attestation, for AI platforms and services likely to be accessed by minors.

The AI Framework further urges Congress to affirm that existing child privacy protections apply to AI systems, including limits on data collection for model training and targeted advertising. At the same time, it cautions Congress against adopting ambiguous content standards or open-ended liability regimes that could generate excessive litigation risk. Notably, it underscores that federal legislation should not preempt states from enforcing their own generally applicable AI laws protecting children, including prohibitions on child sexual abuse material generated by AI.

II. Safeguarding and Strengthening American Communities

The AI Framework links AI policy to broader community, infrastructure, and economic considerations, recommending that AI development strengthen American communities and small businesses through economic growth and energy development. It advises Congress to ensure residential ratepayers do not experience increased electricity costs as a result of new AI data center construction and operation. Concurrently, it calls on Congress to streamline federal permitting for AI infrastructure construction and operation so that AI developers can develop or procure on-site and behind-the-meter power generation.

The AI Framework also recommends augmenting existing law enforcement efforts to combat AI-enabled impersonation scams and fraud that target vulnerable populations, such as seniors. It calls for ensuring that appropriate agencies within the national security enterprise possess sufficient technical capacity to understand frontier AI model capabilities and any associated national security considerations. Additionally, it urges Congress to provide AI resources to small businesses, such as grants, tax incentives, and technical assistance programs.

III. Respecting Intellectual Property Rights and Supporting Creators

The AI Framework reiterates the Trump Administration’s view that training AI models on copyrighted material does not violate copyright laws, but it simultaneously acknowledges that resolution of this issue should rest with the courts. Further, it advises Congress not to take any actions that would impact the judiciary’s resolution of whether training on copyrighted material constitutes fair use.

The AI Framework encourages Congress to consider enabling licensing frameworks or collective rights systems that would allow rights holders to collectively negotiate compensation from AI providers without incurring antitrust liability, though it does not take a position on whether such licensing should be compulsory. It also recommends that Congress consider establishing a federal framework protecting individuals from the unauthorized distribution or commercial use of AI-generated digital replicas of their voice, likeness, or other identifiable attributes, while providing clear exceptions for parody, satire, news reporting, and other expressive works protected by the First Amendment.

IV. Preventing Censorship and Protecting Free Speech

The AI Framework emphasizes defending free speech and First Amendment protections, and it recommends that Congress prevents the federal government from coercing technology providers, including AI providers, to ban, compel, or alter content based on partisan or ideological agendas. It further calls on Congress to provide Americans with an effective means to seek redress from the federal government for agency efforts to censor expression on AI platforms or dictate the information provided by an AI platform.

V. Enabling Innovation and Ensuring American AI Dominance

The AI Framework recommends that Congress establish regulatory sandboxes for AI applications to support experimentation and accelerate AI development and deployment. It also urges Congress to provide resources to make federal datasets accessible to industry and academia in AI-ready formats for use in training AI models and systems. Notably, it explicitly recommends that Congress not create any new federal rulemaking body to regulate AI and instead support development and deployment of sector-specific AI applications through existing regulatory bodies with subject matter expertise and through industry-led standards.

VI. Educating Americans and Developing an AI-Ready Workforce

The AI Framework identifies workforce readiness as a critical pillar of U.S. AI leadership, calling on Congress to use non-regulatory methods to ensure that existing education programs and workforce training and support programs, including apprenticeships, affirmatively incorporate AI training. It also recommends expanding federal efforts to study trends in task-level workforce realignment driven by AI and bolstering capabilities at land-grant institutions to provide technical assistance, launch demonstration projects, and develop AI youth development programs.

VII. Establishing a Federal Policy AI Framework and Preempting State AI Laws

Perhaps the most consequential section of the AI Framework addresses federal preemption of state AI laws. It calls on Congress to preempt state AI laws that impose undue burdens to ensure a minimally burdensome national standard. It articulates certain limits on the scope of federal AI preemption, identifying areas in which state authority should be preserved. These include the traditional police powers retained by states to enforce laws of general applicability against AI developers and users, such as laws protecting children, preventing fraud, and protecting consumers. The AI Framework also preserves state authority over zoning laws, including the placement of AI infrastructure, and over requirements governing a state’s own use of AI through procurement or services such as law enforcement and public education.

Conversely, the AI Framework recommends that states should not be permitted to regulate AI development, characterizing it as an inherently interstate phenomenon with foreign policy and national security implications. It further asserts that states should not unduly burden the use of AI for activity that would be lawful if performed without AI, and that states should not be permitted to penalize AI developers for a third party’s unlawful conduct involving their models.

Legislative Outlook and Practical Considerations

The AI Framework represents an expression of the Trump Administration’s preferred direction for federal AI legislation, but its legislative prospects remain uncertain. The seven priorities are unlikely to advance as a single cohesive legislative package; instead, individual provisions may be incorporated into sector-specific bills or broader legislative vehicles. Some provisions with bipartisan appeal, particularly those related to child safety and ratepayer protection, may advance ahead of others.

Until and unless the federal government acts to preempt state laws, existing state AI laws remain fully in force. Some states, including California and Colorado, have already enacted or proposed laws imposing substantive obligations on AI developers and deployers, and these laws continue to govern. Companies developing or deploying AI systems should closely monitor legislative developments and consider how potential federal AI legislation could affect their compliance obligations and risk management strategies, including with respect to existing state-level regulatory frameworks.

***Opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily the firm’s or their colleagues’.