Can States Still Regulate AI? Preemption Tracker (2027)

As of November 4, 2026, yes, within limits: states can still pass and enforce AI laws, subject to the Constitution and to federal statutes on particular subjects. In a text search of the public laws of the 119th Congress, we found no enacted statute that preempts or pauses state AI laws generally. Executive Order 14365 (90 FR 58499) does not itself declare any state law preempted. Court orders have limited particular laws so far, most on First Amendment grounds, and in the cases on our preemption tracker, one judgment held California's AB 2655 preempted by a federal statute, Section 230, in a suit by X Corp. and Rumble, and declared that applying it to any such provider of an interactive computer service is preempted.

Status as of November 4, 2026: In the public laws of the 119th Congress, we found no enacted statute that generally preempts state AI laws. The Justice Department formed an AI Litigation Task Force in January 2026. Separately, in April 2026 it intervened in a lawsuit against Colorado's AI law under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The FTC's policy statement is proposed, not final. We did not find a published Commerce evaluation of state laws in the Federal Register or on ntia.gov, or a BEAD notice carrying the order's AI condition on NTIA's sites.

This page tracks the federal effort to limit state AI laws: Executive Order 14365, the 2025 moratorium, bills in Congress and the court cases. For what each of the ten AI-centered orders does, see our guide to Trump's AI executive orders. For the laws themselves, start with our state and federal AI laws guide.

Where It Stands: Executive Order 14365, Directive by Directive

President Trump signed Executive Order 14365, "Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence," on December 11, 2025. Section 2 states a policy of "a minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI." The table shows each directive and what we could confirm has happened under it.

The FCC row needs one caution. WT Docket 25-276 (FCC 25-67, 90 FR 55066, published December 1, 2025) asks whether state and local AI regulation may be an effective prohibition on wireless service. It is a wireless-deployment proceeding published before the order, not the Section 6 proceeding. The attorneys general letter described below answers a separate FCC notice of inquiry, published in September 2025, that asked about "wireline telecommunications services." That notice is not the Section 6 proceeding either.

Section 1 of the order refers to "a new Colorado law banning 'algorithmic discrimination'" without naming an act. The FTC's proposal is the document that names "Colorado's recently revised Artificial Intelligence Act," and it says the new version "poses many of the same concerns."

The Justice Department's Colorado Intervention

The department intervened in xAI's lawsuit against Colorado on April 24, 2026. Its complaint in intervention has two counts, both under the Equal Protection Clause, and it rests on 42 U.S.C. 2000h-2, part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It has no preemption count.

We found no standalone Justice Department suit against a state AI law, searching CourtListener and justice.gov press releases through November 3, 2026. The complaint quotes EO 14365 and does not mention the Task Force, so this page does not treat the intervention as action under the order.

What the FTC Proposal Says

The FTC's proposed policy statement says: "Although the FTC Act does not expressly preempt State law, State law is impliedly preempted to the extent it conflicts with a Federal regulatory scheme." It adds that a state law requiring an AI firm to deceive consumers conflicts with section 5 of the FTC Act. This is a proposed statement of the agency's views.

What the White House Recommendations Say

The March 2026 recommendations say "Congress should preempt state AI laws that impose undue burdens to ensure a minimally burdensome national standard consistent with these recommendations, not fifty discordant ones." They add that "States should not be permitted to regulate AI development."

They would leave in place "The traditional police powers retained by the states to enforce laws of general applicability against AI developers and users, including particular laws to protect children, prevent fraud, and protect consumers," plus state zoning and a state's own use of AI.

Section 8(b) of the order lists topics the recommendation may not propose preempting, such as child safety protections. That limits the proposal. It is not an exemption in force for anything.

Can an Executive Order Preempt State AI Laws?

EO 14365 does not itself declare any state law preempted. Section 1 says "My Administration must act with the Congress to ensure that there is a minimally burdensome national standard--not 50 discordant State ones." Section 9(b) says the order "shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations."

Federal preemption rests on the Supremacy Clause, which makes "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties" the "supreme Law of the Land." The order's Task Force section points to arguments that state laws "unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce, are preempted by existing Federal regulations, or are otherwise unlawful in the Attorney General's judgment." Those are arguments for a court. The order does not decide them.

Existing federal statutes can limit a particular state law without a court order. Section 230 says "No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section" (47 U.S.C. 230(e)(3)). While a federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a state may keep a standard on the same aspect of performance "only if the standard is identical" (49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1)). State laws must also comply with the Constitution, and the First Amendment is the main ground in most of the cases below.

In the cases on our preemption tracker, we found no decision holding a state AI law preempted by an executive order. Several of those cases are still open.

The 2025 AI Moratorium: What Passed and What Did Not

The House passed a 10-year ban on enforcing state AI laws. The Senate recast it as a condition on broadband funds, then struck that version 99-1 on July 1, 2025. The enacted law contains neither.

The 99-1 vote struck the Senate's broadband-conditioned version, not the House text. The two versions worked differently: the House wrote a flat ban on enforcement, and the Senate wrote a funding condition.

The debate continued after that vote. On November 25, 2025, a bipartisan coalition of 36 state attorneys general urged Congress to reject proposals for a federal moratorium. The enacted FY2026 defense bill, P.L. 119-60, does not contain the word "moratorium."

Federal AI Preemption Bills in Congress

As of November 4, 2026, none of the bills below has become law. Latest actions are from Congress.gov. Listing a bill here is not a prediction about whether it will pass.

Three other referred bills limit their effect on state law: H.R. 5511 disclaims preemption outright, H.R. 9619 preserves state law at least as protective of chatbot users as the bill, and H.R. 9125 disclaims preemption of state regulation of algorithmic decision-making systems except where it conflicts with the bill. H.R. 8516 has a no-preemption clause for one subtitle only. As introduced, S. 2937 (AI LEAD Act, Sec. 304), S. 4199 (Youth AI Privacy Act) and S. 5051 (AI AGENT Act of 2026) preempt state law only where it conflicts with or is inconsistent with the bill. We found no bill titled the TRUMP AMERICA AI Act in the same title scan, so this page does not treat it as introduced.

The sponsors of the Great American AI Act say in their FAQ that it "would federalize leading frontier safety laws including California's SB-53, New York's RAISE Act, and Illinois' SB315." They also say it "would preempt laws that specifically regulate AI model development, including California's AB 2013 and SB 942 (partial)." That draft has not been introduced under its name. Rep. Obernolte introduced H.R. 9925, the FRONTIER Act, on July 23, 2026, with Rep. Trahan and four others. Its Sec. 9 has its own preemption text, and this page does not treat it as the same bill as the draft.

FY2027 defense bill. H.R. 8800 passed the House 216-212 on July 22, 2026, and reached the Senate on September 14. On S. 4784, cloture on the motion to proceed failed 50-46 on July 14, and the motion was made again on July 27. This page states only their status and does not describe their text.

How we searched. We scanned the titles of all 16,627 House and Senate bills through the Congress.gov API, then searched the published text of the AI-titled bills on govinfo.gov. Bills with no AI term in the title may still touch state AI law, as H.R. 7757 does, and this table is a selection, so a bill missing from it is not proof that no such bill exists.

Court Challenges to State AI Laws, by Legal Ground

Most of these suits are not preemption suits. Challengers usually argue the First Amendment, and in the cases we read, the only preemption theory is Section 230, a federal statute protecting online platforms. In the pleadings and rulings we read, none relies on EO 14365 as a source of preemption.

We did not find a docket challenging California's SB 243 or SB 53, or New York's RAISE Act. That is a search result, not a statement that no one has challenged them.

Kohls v. Bonta: A Section 230 Preemption Ruling

In a judgment entered August 20, 2025, the court declared California's AB 2655 preempted by a statute, Section 230, as applied to X Corp. and Rumble, and declared that applying it to "any such provider of an interactive computer service" is preempted. It permanently enjoined enforcement against those two. A later stipulated order (ECF 100) bars the defendant state officials from enforcing AB 2655 against any provider of an interactive computer service, and it ends if an appellate court vacates the judgment.

The ruling is on appeal, and it concerns online platforms and election deepfakes. It is a holding about a federal statute, not about an executive order.

X.AI v. Weiser: A Stipulated Order, Not an Injunction

On April 27, 2026, Magistrate Judge Cyrus Y. Chung granted a joint motion by xAI, the United States and the Colorado Attorney General. The court made a good-cause stay finding and no finding on the law's validity. The order came from a stipulation, not a contested injunction motion, and the docket shows no merits ruling.

The order says the Attorney General "shall not initiate enforcement, including but not limited to the initiation of an investigation, for alleged violations of SB24-205 (or any legislation replacing or amending SB24-205 enacted during this legislative session) that occurred or may occur on or before 14 days after the date the Court issues a ruling on xAI's forthcoming motion for a preliminary injunction in this case."

SB 24-205 became law May 17, 2024, and SB 25B-004 moved its developer and deployer duties from February 1 to June 30, 2026. SB 26-189, signed May 14, 2026, repeals and reenacts the 2024 law. The rewritten law takes effect January 1, 2027, for decisions made on or after that date, apart from a few provisions, including rulemaking subsections of 6-1-1704 and 6-1-1705, that took effect on passage. We found nothing in these acts that suspends the SB 24-205 duties from June 30 to December 31, 2026. The court order is written by the date of the alleged violation, not by a calendar date.

January 1, 2027 is SB 26-189's general effective date, not a date set in the order. SB 26-189 requires the Attorney General to adopt rules on or before January 1, 2027. xAI must seek an injunction within 28 days after final adoption of the implementing rules, and the order covers alleged violations through 14 days after the ruling on that motion. It does not address conduct after that date. The Attorney General's AI rulemaking page shows an October 26, 2026 hearing and no adoption.

What This Means for a Business or a State Resident

The federal steps so far do not, by their own words, cancel a state AI law. What a business or resident should keep apart:

• State laws no court order has reached yet: EO 14365 does not itself declare them preempted, and in the public laws of the 119th Congress we found no enacted statute that preempts or pauses them generally. They can still be challenged, and federal statutes on particular subjects may still apply to them.
• Laws touched by a court order: Colorado SB 24-205 and SB 26-189 (Attorney General barred from starting enforcement for alleged violations through 14 days after a ruling on xAI's expected motion); California AB 2655 (declared preempted as to X Corp., Rumble and any such provider, with an injunction for those two, on appeal; a stipulated order bars enforcement against any provider of an interactive computer service unless an appellate court vacates the judgment); California AB 2839 (permanently enjoined as to named plaintiffs); Montana SB 25 (preliminarily enjoined as to named plaintiffs); Hawaii Act 191 (permanently enjoined); New York GBL 340-b subdivision 3 (preliminarily enjoined, reconsideration motion pending); Minnesota HF 1606 (injunction pending appeal, with no scope stated, so this page does not say it is blocked for everyone).
• A law a court declined to block: California AB 2013 (preliminary injunction denied, appeal pending).
• A proposal is not a rule: the White House recommendations, the FTC's proposed statement and the Great American AI Act draft do not change any state's law.
• A pause is not a repeal: the Colorado order limits the Attorney General, the enforcer the law names, for alleged violations in the covered period. It does not decide whether the law is valid.

State attorneys general also sue AI companies under state consumer law, as in Montana's October 2026 suit against OpenAI. Those are enforcement actions, not challenges to state AI laws.

This page is general legal information as of November 4, 2026, not legal advice. Whether a law applies to a particular business depends on that law's own definitions and thresholds, which our state pages describe.

How States Have Responded

Beyond the letter from 36 attorneys general, California's Attorney General announced a coalition letter to the FCC on its wireline notice of inquiry "opposing the preemption of state laws on artificial intelligence (AI)," in which the attorneys general argue that "the FCC lacks authority to preempt."

California's Executive Order N-9-26, signed September 18, 2026, says California will keep acting "absent federal action." Its text does not mention EO 14365 or use the word preempt, so we do not treat it as a legal response to the order.

What Changes in 2027

These are the dated and pending events that could change this tracker. Our status checks follow this list, and the page is updated in place.

Change Log

• November 4, 2026: Page published. Status checked through the sources and dates named on this page.

Related AI Law Pages

• State and federal AI laws guide
• Trump AI executive orders
• California AI laws
• Colorado AI laws
• Minnesota AI laws
• New York AI laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Can states regulate AI?

As of November 4, 2026, yes, within limits. States can still pass and enforce AI laws, subject to the Constitution and to federal statutes on particular subjects. In the public laws of the 119th Congress, we found no enacted statute that preempts or pauses them generally. Court orders also limit a few specific state laws.

Is there a federal AI moratorium on state laws?

We found no enacted moratorium as of November 4, 2026. The House passed a 10-year ban in 2025, the Senate struck its own broadband-conditioned version 99-1 on July 1, 2025, and the enacted law, P.L. 119-21, contains neither.

Did Trump's executive order block state AI laws?

EO 14365 does not itself declare any state law preempted. It directs agencies to act, creates a litigation task force and asks for a proposal to Congress. In the cases on our preemption tracker, we found no decision holding a state AI law preempted by an executive order.

Is Trump's AI executive order legal?

This page takes no position. The cases listed here challenge state laws, not the order, and this page does not track suits against the order. The order says it 'shall be implemented consistent with applicable law.'

What is the DOJ AI Litigation Task Force?

It is a Justice Department task force established on January 9, 2026, under EO 14365, whose stated sole responsibility is to challenge state AI laws inconsistent with the order's policy.

Has the DOJ challenged a state AI law?

Yes, in one action that we found. The Justice Department intervened in xAI's lawsuit against Colorado on April 24, 2026, on Equal Protection grounds, relying on 42 U.S.C. 2000h-2. Its complaint does not mention the Task Force. We found no standalone department suit against a state AI law as of November 3, 2026.

Was the Colorado AI Act blocked?

A stipulated federal court order of April 27, 2026, bars the Colorado Attorney General from starting enforcement for alleged violations that occurred or occur on or before 14 days after a ruling on xAI's expected injunction request. The court made no finding on the law's validity, and the rewritten law is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2027.

Has any court held a state AI law preempted?

Yes, under a statute. A federal court held California's AB 2655, on election deepfakes on platforms, preempted by Section 230 in a suit by X Corp. and Rumble, and declared that applying it to any such provider of an interactive computer service is preempted. The state has appealed. A stipulated order also bars enforcement against any such provider unless an appellate court vacates the judgment. In the cases on our preemption tracker, we found no decision holding a state AI law preempted by an executive order.

Will states lose federal broadband money over AI laws?

The order's consequence is limited to remaining BEAD non-deployment funds, to the maximum extent allowed by federal law, for states identified in a Commerce evaluation. As of November 4, 2026, we did not find a published Commerce evaluation in the Federal Register or on ntia.gov, or a BEAD notice carrying the order's AI condition on NTIA's sites.

Is there a federal AI preemption bill in Congress?

Proposals exist, and none is law as of November 4, 2026. H.R. 5388 would set a 5-year moratorium and sits in subcommittee. H.R. 9925, the FRONTIER Act, is in committee and would bar new state obligations on AI developers in listed frontier-risk areas. H.R. 7757, the KIDS Act, passed the House 267-117 on June 29, 2026, has a title on AI chatbots, and would preempt only conflicting state law. The Great American AI Act is a discussion draft, and we found no bill under that name.