Artificial intelligence has been among the targets of President Donald Trump’s flurry of executive orders. One order revoked a 2023 order establishing a regulatory system for AI, which had formed the basis for many new policies, guidelines, and regulations in 2024. A second order appointed a special adviser to the president on AI and cryptocurrency.
A third instructed executive agencies to roll back existing regulations and create new ones around AI. This AI EO doesn’t include a detailed guideline on what the new regulatory system should be, but outlines prospective steps and intended goals.
Given that the details aren’t yet established, it’s possible the AI EO will trigger a realignment of the US approach to AI policy—whether a minor or substantial realignment is uncertain. It will be important to monitor agencies to identify what regulations will be rolled back, what will be altered, and what will be introduced, to determine effects on individual businesses.
The AI EO prescribes several concrete actions to be undertaken within specified time frames:
- The Office of Management and Budget must revise existing policy memoranda within 60 days to ensure alignment with the new strategic framework.
- A comprehensive AI Action Plan must be formulated within 180 days detailing measures to enhance US global AI leadership, with a focus on economic competitiveness, human welfare, and national security.
- Agency heads immediately must identify and suspend, revise, or rescind regulations where necessary if they hinder AI innovation.
The AI EO positions AI development as a strategic national imperative. Regulatory frameworks at the state and international levels, as well as the Biden administration’s framework, emphasize safety and ethical considerations, but the AI EO stresses creating American leadership in AI technology on the global stage.
Key presidential advisers, including the assistant to the president for science and technology, the new special adviser for AI and crypto, and the assistant to the president for national security affairs, will guide the AI action plan due within 180 days of issuance of the AI EO.
The AI EO reflects a degree of continuity with policies advanced during the first Trump administration, particularly its emphasis on technological leadership, national competitiveness, and a deregulatory approach to innovation.
Its language on removing “barriers to American AI innovation” aligns with prior strategies aimed at fostering economic and technological nationalism and underscores an ongoing federal commitment to reducing regulatory burdens perceived as impediments to AI advancement.
By instructing agency heads and others to identify actions that “are or may be inconsistent with, or present obstacles to” the general intent of the new policy, the AI EO suggests that some existing (Biden-era or before) regulation or prior instructions may be consistent with the new policy.
It’s therefore uncertain what, if any, existing policy will be retained, what actions will be taken involving collecting public input from AI stakeholders, and—if such input is sought—in what form the input will be collected.
The AI EO also envisions AI as a critical tool of national power. By explicitly linking AI innovation to economic prosperity and national security, the AI EO suggests future federal AI strategies may integrate technological advancement with broader national objectives regarding economic policy and international competitiveness.
Industry stakeholders and legal professionals alike should consider monitoring the Federal Register and relevant agency websites for forthcoming notices about developments related to existing regulations stemming from the AI EO.
The most immediate change appears to be from the Office of Management and Budget, which has just two months to revise its AI guidance. Beyond that, there likely will be several opportunities for public input, as the administration drafts the AI action plan and agencies then implement the AI EO’s new directives.
The extent to which the AI EO will reshape the regulatory AI landscape is uncertain, but its issuance indicates there may be a shift in regulatory attitude that will be played out in the public forum.
This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.
Author Information
Nicholas Martin and Andrew (A.J.) Tibbetts are shareholders at Greenberg Traurig.
Write for Us: Author Guidelines
To contact the editors responsible for this story: