Key Takeaways
- The White House’s executive order on state-level artificial intelligence laws is seen as an attempt to intimidate states that are taking action to protect people from technological harms.
- The executive order does not create new federal law or repeal existing state protections, but rather directs federal agencies to challenge state laws and threatens the use of discretionary funding to slow or chill state action.
- State legislators across the country are coordinating and standing together to protect people, safeguard privacy, and ensure innovation serves the public interest.
- Vermont is not alone in this effort and is working with other states to share legal analysis and push back against efforts to weaken states’ ability to protect their citizens.
Introduction to the Executive Order
As Vermont enters a new legislative session, many are asking about the White House’s December 11 executive order targeting state-level artificial intelligence laws. According to State Rep. Monique Priestley, "Vermonters deserve to know that state leaders are paying close attention, are prepared, and are not backing down from our responsibility to protect people from real and growing technological harms." The executive order is seen as an aggressive attempt to intimidate states that are doing the work the federal government has repeatedly failed to do. As Priestley notes, "This approach is reckless, and it is wrong."
The Impact of the Executive Order
The executive order does not create new federal law, nor does it repeal existing state protections. Instead, it signals an attempt to challenge state laws and raise the prospect of litigation. Priestley emphasizes that "courts have consistently affirmed that states have broad authority to regulate harmful conduct within their borders." Most existing state AI laws are carefully written to prevent discrimination, deception, unsafe deployment, and abuse. These are core state responsibilities, not federal overreach. The executive order’s reliance on legal theories that many experts agree are weak is a concern. As Priestley quotes, "Threatening states over discretionary grants, particularly funding intended to support rural broadband services like cybersecurity, digital literacy, and privacy protections, sends the wrong message to communities that are already underserved."
The Need for State Action
State legislators across the country are asking the same questions Vermonters are asking: what is the plan, are we taking this seriously, and will states step up if Washington does not. The answer is yes. States have always been the laboratories of democracy, and never has that role been more critical. Technology does not wait for Congress, and it does not respect state borders. Artificial intelligence systems, data brokers, and automated decision-making already influence who can get housing, secure a loan, afford groceries, obtain insurance, land a job, or access basic public services. As Priestley notes, "These impacts are not hypothetical, and it is no longer credible to claim it is too soon to act."
The Importance of State Leadership
As legislators juggle urgent conversations about housing, education, healthcare, and economic stability, technology policy can no longer be treated as a side issue. It requires sustained attention, dedicated expertise, and legislative structures that reflect how deeply technology affects every sector of our economy and daily life. Vermont has led before, and it can lead again. As Priestley emphasizes, "State leadership matters. And this work is far from over. States are only beginning to exercise the leadership this moment demands." Vermonters should be assured that state leaders are stepping up together to protect people, safeguard privacy, and ensure innovation serves the public interest.
Conclusion and Next Steps
The executive order is seen as a last-ditch attempt to accomplish through pressure what could not be achieved through legislation. Efforts to broadly block or preempt state AI laws were repeatedly rejected by Congress. Similar language failed overwhelmingly during debate on the so-called Big Beautiful Bill. It failed again when floated for inclusion in the National Defense Authorization Act. There were reports it might be folded into federal children’s privacy legislation, and that effort failed as well. As Priestley concludes, "Guardrails matter. Privacy matters. State leadership matters. And this work is far from over." Vermonters can expect state leaders to continue watching closely and pushing back against efforts to weaken states’ ability to protect their citizens.
Column: Artificial Intelligence doesn’t wait; Vermont can’t either