President Donald Trump’s leading advisor on artificial intelligence has moved to clarify widespread confusion and speculation surrounding the administration’s emerging policy on federal preemption in AI regulation. In a detailed and carefully reasoned post shared on X this past Monday, David Sacks — who currently serves as the White House AI and Crypto Czar — sought to illuminate the rationale behind a forthcoming executive order that aims to limit individual states’ capacity to implement their own AI-related laws. According to Sacks, this measure is best understood not as an attempt to seize control or diminish state authority arbitrarily, but rather as an effort to settle what he described as a fundamental question of jurisdiction: who, in the rapidly expanding field of artificial intelligence, holds ultimate regulatory authority — the individual states or the federal government?
Sacks, a prominent venture capitalist and co-host of the influential “All In” podcast, used his platform to address the growing debate over AI preemption, a topic that has created friction even among factions within President Trump’s political coalition. While some policymakers view federal preemption as a practical necessity to ensure uniformity and clarity in AI governance, others have raised concerns that such a move could unduly erode state autonomy and local protections. To address these anxieties, Sacks organized his explanation around what he termed the “four Cs”: child safety, communities, creators, and censorship — four domains where the consequences of AI regulation are felt most acutely, and where misunderstandings have been particularly prevalent.
In discussing the issue of communities, Sacks specifically clarified one of the more pressing misconceptions: that AI preemption would somehow compel towns and counties to host data centers they oppose. He emphasized that the proposed federal framework has virtually no relevance to the construction, placement, or municipal control of data centers — massive facilities that house the computational infrastructure behind AI systems. Across the United States, these facilities have become lightning rods for political controversy, largely due to their substantial consumption of water and electricity, sparking environmental and zoning debates in many regions. “AI preemption would not apply to local infrastructure. That’s a separate issue,” Sacks wrote in his post, succinctly reaffirming that the executive order would not strip communities of their ability to reject or restrict data center development. In essence, as he summarized, preemption under this plan would never require a community to accept a data center it does not wish to host.
Equally important to Sacks’s clarification was his assurance that state laws designed to shield children from online predators or to prevent the circulation of exploitative child abuse materials will remain entirely valid and enforceable. The forthcoming policy, he explained, would not override any of these generally applicable state laws, since its scope pertains specifically to AI governance rather than broad public safety statutes. This distinction, Sacks suggested, underscores the administration’s intent to maintain a balance between establishing national consistency in AI oversight and preserving the moral and legal safeguards that individual states have long upheld.
At the same time, the White House continues to advance its broader argument for a unified federal approach: that an unwieldy patchwork of competing regulations across fifty states risks fracturing the American AI ecosystem and undermining the nation’s global competitiveness, particularly in light of China’s accelerated development in the same technological domain. From this perspective, the preemption initiative is portrayed as an urgent strategic step to streamline the regulatory environment and ensure that innovation can flourish at a pace commensurate with international rivals.
While much remains uncertain about the precise content of the upcoming executive order, a draft obtained by Business Insider last month offered a glimpse into its potential directives. The document reportedly instructs the Department of Justice to challenge states that enact what the administration deems excessively burdensome or inconsistent AI statutes. This push follows several unsuccessful attempts to pass AI preemption measures through Congress, most notably during deliberations over the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill.” That proposal initially contained an AI preemption clause, but the provision was ultimately removed before the bill’s passage after encountering objections from multiple Republican lawmakers who were reluctant to expand federal authority in this domain.
Sacks concluded his statement on X by assuring the public that the administration intends to continue working closely with Congress in order to codify a comprehensive federal framework for AI regulation — one that could be implemented through formal legislation rather than administrative order alone. Nonetheless, resistance from within the Republican Party persists. Representative Warren Davidson of Ohio, responding directly to Sacks’s post, voiced skepticism toward any executive approach, remarking pointedly, “Nice framework. This should be a law, not an executive order.” His comment underscores an ongoing tension within the party: a shared desire for innovation and global competitiveness, tempered by concern over the proper limits of executive power and the preservation of state sovereignty in the face of rapidly evolving technological change.
Sourse: https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-czar-david-sacks-trump-data-centers-child-safety-laws-2025-12
