The Trump administration has released a comprehensive national legislative framework for artificial intelligence, urging Congress to establish a unified federal approach. The framework warns that a conflicting "patchwork" of state laws could stifle innovation and hinder U.S. competitiveness in the global AI race.
The proposal is structured around six core policy areas: protecting children and empowering parents, strengthening communities, intellectual property and creator rights, free speech protections, accelerating AI innovation, and workforce development. A central tenet is the call for Congress to preempt state-level AI laws deemed to impose "undue burdens" on developers.
The framework opposes the creation of a new dedicated AI regulator, advocating instead for reliance on existing federal agencies and the courts. On the contentious issue of intellectual property, the administration states that while it believes training AI models on copyrighted material does not violate copyright law, it supports allowing the courts to resolve the dispute, urging Congress not to interfere with that judicial process.
The plan also ties AI expansion to energy and infrastructure policy, calling for faster permitting for data centers, support for on-site power generation, and a "Ratepayer Protection Pledge" to ensure residential electricity costs do not bear the brunt of new AI infrastructure. It advocates for expanded access to federal datasets and the use of regulatory sandboxes to foster innovation.
While emphasizing workforce development, the framework does not address risks of job displacement—a trend already visible in the crypto sector. Companies like Block, Messari, Crypto.com, and the Algorand Foundation have recently announced significant layoffs, with several citing AI integration and broader market volatility as key drivers. Crypto.com CEO Kris Marszalek warned that "companies that do not make this pivot immediately will fail."
The proposal is non-binding and requires Congressional action to be enacted. It has drawn criticism from advocacy groups. The Center for Democracy and Technology noted "internal contradictions," while Public Citizen labeled it "a national framework to protect Big Tech at the expense of everyday Americans" and a "payback" to tech companies.
