DeSantis’s AI Bill of Rights v. Trump’s AI Executive Order

By Sofia Fernandez '28

---

One week after Florida Governor Ron DeSantis proposed an Artificial Intelligence Bill of Rights, (1) Donald Trump enacted an executive order entitled “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence” that seeks to limit states’ policy on Artificial Intelligence (AI), forbidding laws that conflict with this new policy. (2) As of January 10, the Attorney General has established an AI Litigation Task Force to evaluate all existing AI state laws in accordance with the executive order. Although DeSantis’s bill is currently a proposal, an analysis of the proposition and executive legislation reveals that the two are not in opposition. A national policy framework for AI should not supersede DeSantis’s bill, as it falls under a state's constitutionally reserved powers. 

When DeSantis spoke at The Villages, Florida, he announced a proposal for an AI Bill of Rights “to define and safeguard Floridians’ rights” in areas such as privacy, parental rights, consumer protection, and consent. (3) Several of these rights include prohibiting “AI from using an individual’s name, image, likeness without… consent,” requiring “a notice to consumers when interacting with AI”, and “providing parental controls for minors.” (4) Effectiveness beginning on July 1, 2026, this bill was filed in the Florida Senate under SB 482. (5) Despite Trump’s executive order, DeSantis believes that this bill will withstand the White House’s evaluation. (6)

Trump’s executive order followed this proposal shortly. Within this executive order, he expressed how the “United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation.” (7) Rather than 50 different state regulations across the country, Trump sought to create a national policy framework for AI; this framework prevents states from creating laws that conflict with the order. In the meantime, Trump’s Administration is examining current state laws regarding AI to ensure they are not “onerous” or “burdensome.” (8) According to Trump, “there’s only going to be one winner” in the alleged “AI Race,” so this framework will best ensure companies can get the approvals they need with minimal barriers. (9)

Despite the regulatory nature of DeSantis’ proposed AI bill, it should stand after the Administration’s evaluation. According to the Tenth Amendment, Constitutional powers not delegated to the federal government are given to the states. (10) DeSantis’s bill focuses on privacy, consumer protection, and public welfare, all rights delegated to the states instead of the federal government. Even specific laws, such as those related to name, image, and likeness (NIL) and various child protection laws, fall under state jurisdiction. (11) Overall, the topics addressed within the bill are reserved powers. 

In comparison with Trump’s executive order, Trump focuses more on national commerce and security; the executive order states that it will “promote United States national and economic security” and prevent states from “impinging on interstate commerce.” (12)  This follows the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause which states that Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and Congress may make any law deemed “neccessary and proper” to execute their enumerated powers, respectively. (13) 

On July 4, 2025, when President Trump signed Public Law 119-21, also known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” the proposed suspension of State AI Laws was removed due to a Senate vote of 99-1. (14) The Senate almost unanimously agreed that states need to maintain their protection laws, even in virtual and AI spaces, especially if there is no impact on interstate commerce. (15) This idea stems from Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. and its created precedent under the Dormant Commerce Clause: States are restricted from passing legislation that would excessively burden interstate commerce. (16) Therefore, state regulations must have legitimate local public interest and have only incidental effects on interstate commerce. (17) DeSantis’s bill focuses on local applications and commercial relationships within Florida, with its potential impacts on interstate commerce incidental. Overall, the local protection the bill offers falls under the state’s reserved powers and outweighs any potential implications on interstate commerce. 

Section 1 of the executive order stated that “United States leadership in AI will promote United States national and economic security,” also framing this executive order as an act of national security. (18) However, DeSantis’s AI bill is focused primarily on civilian usage, not limiting US AI companies, thus becoming a matter of national interest. The only specific corporations included in this bill that would be affected are insurance companies and behavioral health services, not the US AI companies the bill seeks to protect. (19) The additional corporation mentions require notifying consumers when interacting with AI, prohibiting the selling or sharing of personal information to third parties, and maintaining data privacy protections: all within a state’s reserved powers. (20) U.S. AI companies are not inhibited by any of these consumer protection and privacy laws, thus not impeding on national security. 

Some many argue that DeSantis’ bill is unconstitutional altogether. One First Amendment argument can come from the bill requiring “a notice to consumers when interacting with AI (Company chatbots),” thus violating that “Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech.” (21) However, this potential argument of compelled speech fails to consider the contexts where compelled speech was ruled against in the past. One of the most popular being West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, which prohibited students from being required to say the Pledge of Allegiance at public schools. (22) This company requirement is a matter of commercial speech, encouraging truthful disclosure to prevent deception, ultimately for consumer protection. AI requires transparency and oversight; therefore, this requirement for truth for consumers does not become an issue of speech.

Ultimately, the heart of Trump’s executive order is to prevent states from inhibiting innovation—it's an order for empowerment. As stated previously, there were two overarching words that Trump used in his executive order that encapsulate the problem he had with state AI laws: excessive and onerous. (23) Guided by the definitions,  “Going beyond what is appropriate, required, or customary,” and “refers to something that is heavily demanding or expensive,” respectively, DeSantis’ bill is neither excessive nor onerous; it is a proper extension of a state’s reserved powers. (24) This wording demonstrates that the executive order does not remove states from the conversation of AI. Creating state-level legislation addressing AI-related concerns is necessary to protect its citizens as directly and locally as possible. 

By March 11, 2026, the Secretary of Commerce, with the help of the AI Litigation Task Force, will publish an evaluation of all of the state AI laws that are deemed “onerous” and conflict with the order’s policy. (25) Nonetheless, DeSantis’s AI Bill of Rights is a valid exercise of state authority and thus should not be overridden by Trump’s executive order. 

Endnotes

1. “Governor Ron DeSantis Announces Proposal for Citizen Bill of Rights for Artificial Intelligence | Executive Office of the Governor.” 2025. Flgov.com. 2025. https://www.flgov.com/eog/news/press/2025/governor-ron-desantis-announces-proposal-citizen-bill-rights-artificial.

2. Trump, Donald J. 2025. “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence.” The White House. December 11, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/eliminating-state-law-obstruction-of-national-artificial-intelligence-policy/.

3. “Governor Ron DeSantis Announces Proposal for Citizen Bill of Rights for Artificial Intelligence | Executive Office of the Governor.” 2025. Flgov.com. 2025. https://www.flgov.com/eog/news/press/2025/governor-ron-desantis-announces-proposal-citizen-bill-rights-artificial.

4. Ibid. 

5. “Senate Bill 482 (2026) - the Florida Senate.” Flsenate.gov, 2026, www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2026/482. 

6. Ibid.

7. Trump, Donald J. 2025. “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence.” The White House. December 11, 2025. 

8. Ibid.

9. Cbsnews.com. “Trump Signs Executive Order to Block ‘Excessive’ State AI Regulations,” December 12, 2025. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-signs-executive-order-to-block-state-ai-regulations/.

10. Congress.Gov. “U.S. Constitution - Tenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress.” constitution.congress.gov, December 15, 1791. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/.

11. State.fl.us. “The 2025 Florida Statutes,” 2026. https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0000-0099/0039/Sections/0039.202.html.; State.fl.us. “The 2025 Florida Statutes,” 2025. https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=1000-1099/1006/Sections/1006.74.html.

12. Trump, Donald J. 2025. “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence.” The White House. December 11, 2025. 

13. Constitution Annotated. “Overview of the Commerce Clause | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress.” constitution.congress.gov, 1898. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C3-1/ALDE_00013403/.; Congress.Gov. “The Necessary and Proper Clause: Overview | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress.” constitution.congress.gov, 2024. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-1/ALDE_00001242/.

14. Farlow, Thomas. “Hal 9000 ‘among the Several States’: The Irony of the Dormant Commerce Clause and Ai Regulations after the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” Vanderbilt Law School. Vanderbilt University, November 16, 2025. https://law.vanderbilt.edu/hal-9000-among-the-several-states-the-irony-of-the-dormant-commerce-clause-and-ai-regulations-after-the-one-big-beautiful-bill-act/.

15. Ibid.

16. Justia Law. “Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970),” n.d. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/397/137/.

17. Ibid.

18.  Trump, Donald J. 2025. “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence.” The White House. December 11, 2025. 

19. “Governor Ron DeSantis Announces Proposal for Citizen Bill of Rights for Artificial Intelligence | Executive Office of the Governor.” 2025. Flgov.com. 2025. https://www.flgov.com/eog/news/press/2025/governor-ron-desantis-announces-proposal-citizen-bill-rights-artificial.

20. Ibid.

21. Ibid.; Constitution Annotated. “U.S. Constitution - First Amendment .” constitution.congress.gov. Library of Congress, December 15, 1791. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/.

22. Justia. “West Virginia State Bd. Of Educ. V. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).” Justia Law, 2019. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/624/.

23. Trump, Donald J. 2025. “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence.” The White House. December 11, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/eliminating-state-law-obstruction-of-national-artificial-intelligence-policy/.

24. Justia Legal Dictionary. “Excessive,” n.d. https://dictionary.justia.com/excessive.; Justia Legal Dictionary. “Onerous,” n.d. https://dictionary.justia.com/onerous

25. Trump, Donald J. 2025. “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence.” The White House. December 11, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/eliminating-state-law-obstruction-of-national-artificial-intelligence-policy/.