{"id":138975,"date":"2025-12-14T16:19:52","date_gmt":"2025-12-15T00:19:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/12\/14\/trump-ai-regulation-order-hallucinates-more-fake-law-than-any-ai\/"},"modified":"2025-12-14T16:19:52","modified_gmt":"2025-12-15T00:19:52","slug":"trump-ai-regulation-order-hallucinates-more-fake-law-than-any-ai","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/12\/14\/trump-ai-regulation-order-hallucinates-more-fake-law-than-any-ai\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump AI Regulation Order Hallucinates More Fake Law Than Any AI"},"content":{"rendered":"

Donald Trump signed an executive order<\/a> yesterday purporting to block states from artificial intelligence regulation. Can a president unilaterally invent new laws and then assert that this counts as occupying the field to then preempt state laws? No, of course not. But he issued the order anyway because this administration is itself a hallucination engine stochastically vomiting out orders. And the public is troublingly dumb enough<\/a> to think executive orders can create policy out of thin air.<\/p>\n

Let us endeavor to redline this unlawful gibberish, since there does not appear to be a competent attorney within the White House orbit capable of doing so:<\/p>\n

\n

Section\u00a01.\u00a0\u00a0Purpose.\u00a0 United States leadership in Artificial Intelligence (AI) will promote United States national and economic security and dominance across many domains.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This is marketing fluff that would make Sam Altman blush, but let\u2019s give Trump credit where it\u2019s due: introducing AI to national security already successfully flagged Pete Hegseth as a war criminal<\/a> so maybe the technology does bring something to the table.<\/p>\n

\n

My Administration has already done tremendous work to advance that objective, including by updating existing Federal regulatory frameworks to remove barriers to and encourage adoption of AI applications across sectors.\u00a0 These efforts have already delivered tremendous benefits to the American people and led to trillions of dollars of investments across the country.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

As a reminder, the \u201ctrillions of dollars of investments\u201d he\u2019s talking about are mostly on paper IOUs passed around a perfect circle<\/a>. At the center of the Ouroboros of Suck sits NVIDIA, the company that holds the entire U.S. economy afloat right now. The media covers it every time NVIDIA throws a life preserver to drowning AI companies, but rarely point out that the money is mostly as hallucinatory as the AI results. As Ed Zitron summed it up<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

You\u2019ve likely seen a few ridiculous headlines recently. One of the most recent, and most absurd, is that that\u00a0OpenAI will pay Oracle $300 billion over four years<\/a>, closely followed with the claim that\u00a0NVIDIA will \u201cinvest\u201d \u201c$100 billion\u201d in OpenAI to build 10GW of AI data centers<\/a>, though the deal is structured in a way that means that OpenAI is paid \u201cprogressively as each gigawatt is deployed,\u201d and\u00a0OpenAI will be leasing the chips (rather than buying them outright)<\/a>. I must be clear that these deals\u00a0are intentionally made to continue the myth of generative AI, to pump NVIDIA,\u00a0and to make sure OpenAI insiders can sell $10.3 billion of shares<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

OpenAI cannot afford the $300 billion, NVIDIA hasn\u2019t sent OpenAI a cent and won\u2019t do so if it can\u2019t build the data centers,\u00a0which OpenAI most assuredly can\u2019t afford to do.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That said, if there\u2019s anyone who understands claiming with conviction that something is worth more than it actually is on financial reports it\u2019s Donald Trump. Indeed, Trump has multiple convictions to that effect<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation. \u00a0But excessive State regulation thwarts this imperative. \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

China is a totalitarian state and they\u2019ve already built a better product in DeepSeek \u2014 as long as you don\u2019t ask it any questions about Tibet \u2014 so some state guardrails against Sora generating child porn aren\u2019t going to grind AI development to a halt. <\/p>\n

\n

First, State-by-State regulation by definition creates a patchwork of 50 different regulatory regimes that makes compliance more challenging, particularly for start-ups. \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Remember when these guys couldn\u2019t shut up about states\u2019 rights? It\u2019s almost as though that was more about pushing neo-segregation<\/a> than an honest commitment to federalism. Weird.<\/p>\n

\n

Second, State laws are increasingly responsible for requiring entities to embed ideological bias within models. \u00a0For example, a new Colorado law banning \u201calgorithmic discrimination\u201d may even force AI models to produce false results in order to avoid a \u201cdifferential treatment or impact\u201d on protected groups.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

My guy, AI does not need any help producing false results. <\/p>\n

In fact, the Colorado law at issue is about preventing<\/em> false results given that algorithms are uniquely prone to garbage in\/garbage out bias. <\/p>\n

\n

Third, State laws sometimes impermissibly regulate beyond State borders, impinging on interstate commerce.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That\u2019s\u2026 not impermissible. Congress can exercise its authority to regulate interstate commerce, but that doesn\u2019t mean \u2014 absent congressional action \u2014 that states are barred from passing laws that can have knock on effects beyond their borders. \u201cSometimes\u201d is carrying a lot of water here and the order isn\u2019t making any effort to show its work.<\/p>\n

\n

My Administration must act with the Congress to ensure that there is a minimally burdensome national standard \u2014 not 50 discordant State ones.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The \u201cmust act with the Congress\u201d part is critical. Because, you know, they make laws and executive orders DO NOT MAKE LAWS. This is Schoolhouse Rock<\/em> shit. That said, there\u2019s a certain symbolic beauty to the way this order tracks the very problems with AI that everyone\u2019s trying to regulate. Christine Lemmer-Webber is credited with calling generative AI \u201cmansplaining as a service\u201d and here we have an executive order that\u2019s all confidence and buzzwords while managing to be completely wrong about everything.<\/p>\n

\n

That framework should also ensure that children are protected\u2026<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Sure.<\/p>\n

\n

censorship is prevented\u2026<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Sort of the exact opposite of the last one. <\/p>\n

\n

copyrights are respected\u2026<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Too late.<\/p>\n

\n

and communities are safeguarded. \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

What does that even mean? <\/p>\n

\n

Until such a national standard exists, however\u2026<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

There\u2019s no \u201chowever\u201d here. Until Congress sees fit to draft a law setting this \u201cnational standard,\u201d the president cannot do one goddamned thing about it.<\/p>\n

\n

it is imperative that my Administration takes action to check the most onerous and excessive laws emerging from the States that threaten to stymie innovation.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

And even if the president could impose a placeholder law while Congress dithers, it absolutely cannot cancel state laws in favor of that new made-up law<\/em>. Trump really should stick to the white supremacy because this is not how supremacy works in a Supremacy Clause sense. It does not read \u201cthis Constitution, the laws of the United States, and whatever the President is mad about on Truth Social shall be the supreme law of the land.\u201d He\u2019s acknowledging that there is no existing law of the United States and just inventing one and claiming preemption. The Tenth Amendment says the total opposite of this.<\/p>\n

\n

Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall establish an AI Litigation Task Force (Task Force) whose sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws inconsistent with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order, including on grounds that such laws unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce, are preempted by existing Federal regulations, or are otherwise unlawful in the Attorney General\u2019s judgment, including, if appropriate, those laws identified pursuant to section 4 of this order.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

No, the Attorney General cannot challenge state laws for being inconsistent with non-existent federal laws. Nor can the administration withhold congressionally allocated funds from states in retaliation over state AI regulations, which the order also purports to do. Not that the Supreme Court has shown anything to suggest they\u2019d stop him. Train v. City of New York<\/em>? This Court ignores way bigger precedents than that on the regular! To be clear, if this were challenged, the Court wouldn\u2019t rule<\/em> in Trump\u2019s favor \u2014 because that might empower a future Democratic president<\/a> \u2014 and would just fire off a shadow docket opinion allowing Trump to do it indefinitely.<\/p>\n

Nor can any of the other federal flunkies he identifies in the order \u2014 Commerce, the FTC, or the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto and Unicorn Farts \u2014 preempt state laws. The order gives some lip service to a creative executive agency concocting an argument for AI falling under otherwise existing regulations, which would be a fair executive order power, but there\u2019s not much of an argument for how a law banning AI from being used to deepfake naked celebrities constitutes the state making the AI provider engage in a deceptive commercial practice. <\/p>\n

There just aren\u2019t any existing hooks to credibly hang this preemption effort.<\/p>\n

Tech policy researchers have already noted<\/a> the Trump administration cannot restrict state regulation this way without Congress passing a law. OpenAI has acknowledged that \u201cfederal preemption over existing or prospective state laws will require an act of Congress.\u201d Hell, STEVE BANNON<\/a> says, \u201c\u201dDavid Sacks having face-planted twice on jamming AI Amnesty into must-pass legislation now completely misleads the President on preemption.\u201d So we\u2019re all in agreement here except the Dunning-Kruger-in-Chief occupying the White House.<\/p>\n

When AI hallucinates, it at least has the decency to admit it\u2019s wrong when called out. When the executive branch does it, apparently we just call it policy.<\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Trump AI Regulation Order Hallucinates More Fake Law Than Any AI<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Donald Trump signed an executive order<\/a> yesterday purporting to block states from artificial intelligence regulation. Can a president unilaterally invent new laws and then assert that this counts as occupying the field to then preempt state laws? No, of course not. But he issued the order anyway because this administration is itself a hallucination engine stochastically vomiting out orders. And the public is troublingly dumb enough<\/a> to think executive orders can create policy out of thin air.<\/p>\n

Let us endeavor to redline this unlawful gibberish, since there does not appear to be a competent attorney within the White House orbit capable of doing so:<\/p>\n

\n

Section\u00a01.\u00a0\u00a0Purpose.\u00a0 United States leadership in Artificial Intelligence (AI) will promote United States national and economic security and dominance across many domains.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This is marketing fluff that would make Sam Altman blush, but let\u2019s give Trump credit where it\u2019s due: introducing AI to national security already successfully flagged Pete Hegseth as a war criminal<\/a> so maybe the technology does bring something to the table.<\/p>\n

\n

My Administration has already done tremendous work to advance that objective, including by updating existing Federal regulatory frameworks to remove barriers to and encourage adoption of AI applications across sectors.\u00a0 These efforts have already delivered tremendous benefits to the American people and led to trillions of dollars of investments across the country.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

As a reminder, the \u201ctrillions of dollars of investments\u201d he\u2019s talking about are mostly on paper IOUs passed around a perfect circle<\/a>. At the center of the Ouroboros of Suck sits NVIDIA, the company that holds the entire U.S. economy afloat right now. The media covers it every time NVIDIA throws a life preserver to drowning AI companies, but rarely point out that the money is mostly as hallucinatory as the AI results. As Ed Zitron summed it up<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

You\u2019ve likely seen a few ridiculous headlines recently. One of the most recent, and most absurd, is that that\u00a0OpenAI will pay Oracle $300 billion over four years<\/a>, closely followed with the claim that\u00a0NVIDIA will \u201cinvest\u201d \u201c$100 billion\u201d in OpenAI to build 10GW of AI data centers<\/a>, though the deal is structured in a way that means that OpenAI is paid \u201cprogressively as each gigawatt is deployed,\u201d and\u00a0OpenAI will be leasing the chips (rather than buying them outright)<\/a>. I must be clear that these deals\u00a0are intentionally made to continue the myth of generative AI, to pump NVIDIA,\u00a0and to make sure OpenAI insiders can sell $10.3 billion of shares<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

OpenAI cannot afford the $300 billion, NVIDIA hasn\u2019t sent OpenAI a cent and won\u2019t do so if it can\u2019t build the data centers,\u00a0which OpenAI most assuredly can\u2019t afford to do.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That said, if there\u2019s anyone who understands claiming with conviction that something is worth more than it actually is on financial reports it\u2019s Donald Trump. Indeed, Trump has multiple convictions to that effect<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation. \u00a0But excessive State regulation thwarts this imperative. \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

China is a totalitarian state and they\u2019ve already built a better product in DeepSeek \u2014 as long as you don\u2019t ask it any questions about Tibet \u2014 so some state guardrails against Sora generating child porn aren\u2019t going to grind AI development to a halt. <\/p>\n

\n

First, State-by-State regulation by definition creates a patchwork of 50 different regulatory regimes that makes compliance more challenging, particularly for start-ups. \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Remember when these guys couldn\u2019t shut up about states\u2019 rights? It\u2019s almost as though that was more about pushing neo-segregation<\/a> than an honest commitment to federalism. Weird.<\/p>\n

\n

Second, State laws are increasingly responsible for requiring entities to embed ideological bias within models. \u00a0For example, a new Colorado law banning \u201calgorithmic discrimination\u201d may even force AI models to produce false results in order to avoid a \u201cdifferential treatment or impact\u201d on protected groups.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

My guy, AI does not need any help producing false results. <\/p>\n

In fact, the Colorado law at issue is about preventing<\/em> false results given that algorithms are uniquely prone to garbage in\/garbage out bias. <\/p>\n

\n

Third, State laws sometimes impermissibly regulate beyond State borders, impinging on interstate commerce.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That\u2019s\u2026 not impermissible. Congress can exercise its authority to regulate interstate commerce, but that doesn\u2019t mean \u2014 absent congressional action \u2014 that states are barred from passing laws that can have knock on effects beyond their borders. \u201cSometimes\u201d is carrying a lot of water here and the order isn\u2019t making any effort to show its work.<\/p>\n

\n

My Administration must act with the Congress to ensure that there is a minimally burdensome national standard \u2014 not 50 discordant State ones.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The \u201cmust act with the Congress\u201d part is critical. Because, you know, they make laws and executive orders DO NOT MAKE LAWS. This is Schoolhouse Rock<\/em> shit. That said, there\u2019s a certain symbolic beauty to the way this order tracks the very problems with AI that everyone\u2019s trying to regulate. Christine Lemmer-Webber is credited with calling generative AI \u201cmansplaining as a service\u201d and here we have an executive order that\u2019s all confidence and buzzwords while managing to be completely wrong about everything.<\/p>\n

\n

That framework should also ensure that children are protected\u2026<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Sure.<\/p>\n

\n

censorship is prevented\u2026<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Sort of the exact opposite of the last one. <\/p>\n

\n

copyrights are respected\u2026<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Too late.<\/p>\n

\n

and communities are safeguarded. \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

What does that even mean? <\/p>\n

\n

Until such a national standard exists, however\u2026<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

There\u2019s no \u201chowever\u201d here. Until Congress sees fit to draft a law setting this \u201cnational standard,\u201d the president cannot do one goddamned thing about it.<\/p>\n

\n

it is imperative that my Administration takes action to check the most onerous and excessive laws emerging from the States that threaten to stymie innovation.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

And even if the president could impose a placeholder law while Congress dithers, it absolutely cannot cancel state laws in favor of that new made-up law<\/em>. Trump really should stick to the white supremacy because this is not how supremacy works in a Supremacy Clause sense. It does not read \u201cthis Constitution, the laws of the United States, and whatever the President is mad about on Truth Social shall be the supreme law of the land.\u201d He\u2019s acknowledging that there is no existing law of the United States and just inventing one and claiming preemption. The Tenth Amendment says the total opposite of this.<\/p>\n

\n

Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall establish an AI Litigation Task Force (Task Force) whose sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws inconsistent with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order, including on grounds that such laws unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce, are preempted by existing Federal regulations, or are otherwise unlawful in the Attorney General\u2019s judgment, including, if appropriate, those laws identified pursuant to section 4 of this order.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

No, the Attorney General cannot challenge state laws for being inconsistent with non-existent federal laws. Nor can the administration withhold congressionally allocated funds from states in retaliation over state AI regulations, which the order also purports to do. Not that the Supreme Court has shown anything to suggest they\u2019d stop him. Train v. City of New York<\/em>? This Court ignores way bigger precedents than that on the regular! To be clear, if this were challenged, the Court wouldn\u2019t rule<\/em> in Trump\u2019s favor \u2014 because that might empower a future Democratic president<\/a> \u2014 and would just fire off a shadow docket opinion allowing Trump to do it indefinitely.<\/p>\n

Nor can any of the other federal flunkies he identifies in the order \u2014 Commerce, the FTC, or the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto and Unicorn Farts \u2014 preempt state laws. The order gives some lip service to a creative executive agency concocting an argument for AI falling under otherwise existing regulations, which would be a fair executive order power, but there\u2019s not much of an argument for how a law banning AI from being used to deepfake naked celebrities constitutes the state making the AI provider engage in a deceptive commercial practice. <\/p>\n

There just aren\u2019t any existing hooks to credibly hang this preemption effort.<\/p>\n

Tech policy researchers have already noted<\/a> the Trump administration cannot restrict state regulation this way without Congress passing a law. OpenAI has acknowledged that \u201cfederal preemption over existing or prospective state laws will require an act of Congress.\u201d Hell, STEVE BANNON<\/a> says, \u201c\u201dDavid Sacks having face-planted twice on jamming AI Amnesty into must-pass legislation now completely misleads the President on preemption.\u201d So we\u2019re all in agreement here except the Dunning-Kruger-in-Chief occupying the White House.<\/p>\n

When AI hallucinates, it at least has the decency to admit it\u2019s wrong when called out. When the executive branch does it, apparently we just call it policy.<\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Trump AI Regulation Order Hallucinates More Fake Law Than Any AI<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Donald Trump signed an executive order yesterday purporting to block states from artificial intelligence regulation. Can a president unilaterally invent new laws and then assert that this counts as occupying the field to then preempt state laws? No, of course not. But he issued the order anyway because this administration is itself a hallucination engine […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":138930,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-138975","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Headshot-300x200-Haj8t8.jpg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138975","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=138975"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138975\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/138930"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138975"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138975"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138975"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}