Key Takeaways
The new federal AI policy calls for the preemption of certain state laws regulating AI, but expressly preserves state authority to regulate a state’s own use of AI, including in law enforcement.
Consequently, state laws regulating police use of AI — including laws requiring disclosure of AI use, establishing procurement standards, or regulating specific AI tools — are entirely permissible under the new federal policy.
On December 11, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order calling for a “minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI” and for the preemption of certain state laws regulating AI. This piece will explain why state laws regulating law enforcement use of AI are not impacted by this new federal policy.
The AI executive order argues for a uniform national standard for AI policy and criticizes state laws deemed to embed “ideological bias” or to burden the development and deployment of AI. The order calls for the development of legislative recommendations to preempt state AI laws inconsistent with federal AI policy, as well as the creation of an “AI Litigation Task Force” to challenge such laws. On March 21, 2026, the Trump Administration released a “national policy framework” containing a set of legislative recommendations, which again emphasize the need to “preempt state AI laws that impose undue burdens.”
The administration’s AI executive order and policy framework understandably may prompt concern about whether state or local laws regulating law enforcement use of AI are now vulnerable to legal challenge by the administration.
They are not. The reason is straightforward: both the executive order and national policy framework expressly preserve state authority to regulate a state’s own use of AI.
The December 11, 2025, executive order states that the legislative recommendations it calls for “shall not propose preempting otherwise lawful State AI laws relating to […] State government procurement and use of AI.”
The March 20, 2026, national policy framework adopts the same principle in even more specific terms, providing: “This national standard should respect key principles of federalism and not preempt … [r]equirements governing a state’s own use of AI, whether through procurement or services they provide like law enforcement and public education.”
This language makes clear that state laws regulating law enforcement use of AI do not conflict with the new federal AI policy. This includes state laws that, for example, require disclosure of AI use, establish procurement standards for agencies, or regulate specific AI tools such as license plate readers.
For more information, contact the Policing Project at tech@policingproject.org.
