- within Technology topic(s)
- with readers working within the Advertising & Public Relations industries
- within Finance and Banking topic(s)
Artificial intelligence regulation in the United States is entering a new phase — one marked less by theoretical debate and more by concrete policy choices.
In March 2026, the Trump Administration released a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (the “Framework”), a document intended to guide Congress as it considers federal legislation governing AI. Although the Framework does not itself impose legal obligations, it represents the most coordinated statement yet of how the White House believes AI should be regulated — and, just as importantly, how it should not be regulated.
For companies developing, deploying, or relying on AI, the Framework offers insight into where federal policy may be headed, where resistance is likely to arise, and why the regulatory environment is likely to remain unsettled for the foreseeable future.
A National Approach Over State-by-State Regulation
The Administration’s principal concern is fragmentation. Over the past several years, states such as California, New York, and others have moved aggressively to regulate AI within their borders, often addressing issues like consumer protection, privacy, bias, and children’s online safety. While these efforts reflect legitimate concerns, the Framework argues that a growing mosaic of state rules risks creating conflicting obligations for businesses operating nationwide.
The Administration’s response is a call for federal primacy in AI policy. The Framework urges Congress to adopt national standards that would override state AI laws deemed unduly burdensome or disruptive to interstate commerce. At the same time, it stops short of total preemption. Traditional areas of state authority — such as fraud enforcement, child welfare laws, zoning and land use rules, and regulation of how states themselves deploy AI — would largely remain intact.
This attempt to strike a balance between uniformity and federalism is one of the most consequential and politically sensitive elements of the Framework. It is also where the clearest fault lines are beginning to form between Republicans, Democrats, and state regulators.
Regulation by Existing Institutions, Not New Bureaucracies
Another defining feature of the Framework is its resistance to building new regulatory structures. Rather than proposing a dedicated AI regulator, the Administration favors placing AI oversight within existing agencies that already regulate specific sectors, such as healthcare, labor, energy, and telecommunications.
The Framework reflects a concern that creating a new, centralized AI authority could slow deployment, encourage overly cautious decision making, and introduce regulatory uncertainty at a moment when global competition — particularly with China — is accelerating. Instead, the Administration emphasizes coordination, guidance, and selective intervention over comprehensive rulemaking.
This approach contrasts sharply with proposals circulating in Congress that envision new oversight bodies, mandatory audits, or prescriptive compliance regimes.
Priority Areas for Congressional Action
While the Framework avoids sweeping mandates, it does identify several domains where lawmakers may face pressure to act sooner rather than later.
Children, Parents, and Online Safety
Among all issues addressed, protections for minors receive the most detailed treatment. The Framework advocates tools that give parents more control over children’s interactions with AI systems, including privacy controls, screen time management, and content filters. It also supports age assurance mechanisms for AI services likely to be accessed by children, provided those mechanisms are privacy protective and commercially reasonable.
Importantly, the Framework cautions against vague or open ended standards that could lead to excessive content moderation or expanded liability exposure for developers. While child safety is framed as a clear federal priority, the Administration signals concern about unintended consequences if requirements are drafted too broadly.
Intellectual Property and Creative Rights
On copyright and AI training data, the Framework adopts a deliberately restrained posture. The Administration reiterates its position that using copyrighted materials to train AI systems generally does not violate copyright law, but it acknowledges that courts may ultimately reach differing conclusions.
Rather than pushing Congress to resolve these disputes immediately through legislation, the Framework suggests allowing case law to continue developing while policymakers explore narrower solutions — such as voluntary licensing models, collective bargaining mechanisms for rights holders, and targeted protections against unauthorized digital replicas of a person’s voice or likeness.
This incremental approach reflects sensitivity to how disruptive a legislative intervention could be at a moment when the legal contours of AI and copyright remain unsettled.
Free Expression and Government Influence
The Framework also places significant emphasis on limiting government involvement in content moderation. It asserts that federal agencies should not pressure AI developers or technology platforms to suppress lawful speech or shape outputs to reflect ideological preferences.
To that end, it proposes guardrails designed to prevent coercive behavior by government actors and to provide avenues for individuals or companies to seek recourse if such pressure occurs. This focus aligns with the Administration’s broader concerns about political bias in technology platforms, while stopping short of restructuring platform liability more broadly.
Infrastructure, Energy, and Community Impact
As AI systems grow more resource intensive, the Administration highlights the strain on energy infrastructure posed by data centers and advanced computing facilities. The Framework encourages streamlined permitting for power generation tied to AI infrastructure and supports policies intended to shield consumers from bearing increased electricity costs.
It also calls for coordination between technology companies and energy providers to ensure that AI growth does not undermine grid reliability or disproportionately burden local communities.
Innovation and Workforce Development
Rather than mandating employment disclosures or imposing new labor requirements, the Framework emphasizes workforce adaptation through existing programs. It encourages integrating AI skills into education and training initiatives, expanding access to government datasets for research and development, and using controlled testing environments to foster innovation without excessive regulatory friction.
A Crowded and Contentious Legislative Landscape
The release of the Framework coincides with heightened activity on Capitol Hill. Just days earlier, a comprehensive draft bill — the TRUMP AMERICA AI Act — was circulated, proposing far more detailed rules concerning liability, child safety, political neutrality, and copyright enforcement.
At the same time, Democratic lawmakers have advanced legislation designed to limit federal preemption, preserve state authority, and impose stronger oversight mechanisms. These competing approaches underscore a broader reality: there is no consensus yet on how aggressively AI should be regulated, or who should bear the primary responsibility for oversight.
As a result, even with growing momentum, the path to comprehensive federal AI legislation remains uncertain and politically complex.
What This Means for Businesses and Institutions
For now, companies should expect a prolonged period of regulatory transition. Federal signals are becoming clearer, but state laws continue to apply, and targeted legislative action is more likely than sweeping reform in the near term.
Organizations relying on AI should be thinking proactively about how evolving federal priorities — particularly around child safety, content moderation, energy use, and data practices — could reshape expectations even before binding rules are finalized.
The Trump Administration’s Framework does not settle the debate over AI governance, but it meaningfully reframes it. The coming months will test whether Congress can translate this policy vision into workable legislation — and how much common ground exists between competing regulatory philosophies.
Lewis Brisbois attorneys are actively advising U.S. and multinational companies on the rapidly evolving federal and state regulatory landscape governing artificial intelligence. Our team works with clients on AI governance and compliance strategies, assessment of emerging federal AI proposals and state law obligations, risk management related to AI deployment and use, and integration of AI technologies within existing legal, operational, and compliance frameworks as policy developments continue to unfold.
If your company is developing, deploying, or relying on AI systems — or reevaluating existing AI strategies in light of increasing federal and state activity — we can help you anticipate regulatory change, manage legal risk, and position your business for continued innovation. For more information, please contact the author or editors of this alert, or visit our Artificial Intelligence Task Force page for additional resources.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
