Where AI Regulation Stands Today: The Feds' Push for a National Standard

The current state of AI regulation in the United States is characterized by a significant push from the federal government to establish a unified national standard, contrasting sharply with the fragmented and active enforcement landscape at the state level. In March 2026, the White House released its National Artificial Intelligence Legislative Framework, which outlined six key objectives. These objectives include protecting children, safeguarding communities, respecting intellectual property, preventing censorship, enabling innovation, and developing an AI-ready workforce. This framework, along with Executive Orders 14110 (October 2023) and 14365 (December 2025), forms the cornerstone of the federal strategy. Executive Order 14110 focused on promoting the "safe, secure and trustworthy" development and use of AI through standards-setting and risk management. More recently, EO 14365 explicitly laid the groundwork for a central AI governance framework, advocating for a "minimally burdensome national standard—not 50 discordant State ones." The federal approach has shifted from broad, agency-driven governance efforts toward an explicit push for uniformity, even accompanied by a litigation strategy to challenge state laws deemed onerous or extraterritorial. However, despite these federal initiatives, companies are still navigating a complex and often conflicting array of state and federal AI laws. State Attorneys General (AGs) have emerged as primary enforcers of AI practices, utilizing their broad authority and flexible legal tools to address emerging risks. They are not limited to AI-specific statutes but instead apply existing civil rights, consumer protection, and false advertising laws to AI-related conduct. For instance, the California AG has warned that AI use in sectors like healthcare and employment remains subject to existing laws, allowing enforcement against discriminatory or misleading AI outcomes. The ability of state AGs to coordinate multi-state actions further complicates the compliance landscape, increasing liability and potentially imposing nationwide compliance obligations, especially in high-risk areas. This creates an environment where businesses face ongoing legal uncertainty, dual compliance burdens, and increased litigation risk as federal and state rules continue to evolve and sometimes conflict. Companies are advised to proactively build AI governance frameworks that can withstand multi-state scrutiny, including robust documentation, AI system audits, vendor risk management, and continuous monitoring of AG activities, rather than waiting for federal guidance to standardize requirements. This proactive stance is crucial given the structural incentives for AGs, often elected officials, to respond to politically salient AI-related issues, leading to an aggressive enforcement posture even as legal standards are still developing.