Overview
On January 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice announced (pdf) the creation of an Artificial Intelligence Litigation Task Force with the sole mandate to challenge state AI laws deemed inconsistent with the Trump administration’s federal AI policy framework.
Background: Executive Order
The Task Force was established pursuant to President Trump’s December 11, 2025 executive order titled “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence.” The executive order aims to establish a “minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI” and identifies certain state AI laws as obstacles to American AI development.
Key Directive
The executive order specifically directs the Attorney General to establish an AI Litigation Task Force within 30 days, with the primary responsibility of challenging state AI laws that are inconsistent with the Policy, including on grounds that such laws unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce, are preempted by existing Federal regulations, or are otherwise unlawful. The executive order explicitly calls out Colorado’s AI Act (SB 24-205) as an example of a state law that “requir[es] entities to embed ideological bias within models” and could force AI models to produce false results. This language strongly suggests the Colorado AI Act will be an early target.
Timeline
- December 11, 2025: Executive order signed
- January 9, 2026: Task Force officially established (pdf)
- March 11, 2026: Commerce Department must publish evaluation identifying “onerous” state AI laws suitable for legal challenge
Legal Theories
The Task Force is expected to challenge state AI laws on several grounds:
1. Dormant Commerce Clause
Arguing that state AI laws impermissibly burden interstate commerce by creating a patchwork of conflicting regulations.
2. Federal Preemption
Claiming that existing federal laws (potentially FTC Act, telecommunications regulations, Communications Decency Act section 230, or other statutes) preempt state AI regulation.
3. First Amendment
Challenging state requirements as compelled speech or content-based restrictions on AI outputs.
4. Due Process
Arguing that state AI laws are unconstitutionally vague or arbitrary.
State Responses
Many states are opposed to the federal government’s efforts to interfere with state regulation of AI. Several states have indicated they will defend their AI laws:
- California Attorney General Rob Bonta opposed federal preemption efforts and has committed to defending California’s AI laws
- Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said Colorado will challenge the order in court and vowed to “defend the rule of law and protect the people of Colorado”
- Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (Republican) stated that “an executive order can’t block states” and asserted Florida’s right to regulate AI under the Tenth Amendment
What to Watch
Key developments to monitor:
- Commerce Department Report (March 11, 2026): Will identify which state laws are deemed “onerous”
- First Lawsuits (Spring 2026): Possibly against Colorado and/or California laws
- State Counter-Challenges: States may sue to block the executive order itself
- Congressional Action: Congress could pass legislation either preempting state laws or protecting state authority
Filed Cases
No federal challenges have been filed yet. This section will be updated when the DOJ Task Force files lawsuits.
Last updated: February 18, 2026