FCC Has Only Limited Role in Trump AI Action Plan

Under the plan, the FCC is instructed to “evaluate whether state AI regulations interfere with the agency’s ability to carry out its obligations and authorities under the Communications Act.” It directs the FTC to review all actions on AI during the last administration, ensuring "they do not advance theories of liability that unduly burden AI innovation.”

The plan directs the OMB to work with federal agencies to consider states’ “AI regulatory climate when making funding decisions and limit funding if the state’s AI regulatory regimes may hinder the effectiveness of that funding or award.”

The FCC has taken on AI in the past, including an NPRM last summer aimed at reducing unwanted AI robocalls (see 2408070037). Congress recently rejected a plan to put a national moratorium on state regulation of AI, though it could be back in future legislation (see 2507210042).

The U.S. “needs to innovate faster and more comprehensively than our competitors in the development and distribution of new AI technology across every field, and dismantle unnecessary regulatory barriers that hinder the private sector in doing so,” the plan says. Trump’s plan “puts forward a series of actions that will ensure America’s AI remains the gold standard around the world,” said FCC Chairman Brendan Carr.

During a Broadband Breakfast webinar on Wednesday, experts noted continuing questions about state regulation and the Trump administration’s aggressive approach to promoting AI.

Adam Thierer, senior fellow at the R Street Institute, noted that two years ago the U.S. was looking at a “global AI pause,” while the Senate was considering an AI regulatory agency and licensing scheme. “It was the most comprehensive effort to preemptively regulate a new emerging technology that I had ever seen,” he said. The Trump plan is “a decidedly different approach” to AI, Thierer added. “We’ve realized that we’re in an international race with China for global AI supremacy.”

The states aren’t backing down from regulation and “are moving in a very different direction,” Thierer said. Nearly 1,100 AI-related bills are pending in the states today, with the most in just four: California, New York, Illinois and Colorado. “New York has a major AI safety bill on the governor’s desk as we speak." The proposed laws would regulate AI “in very different ways” and don’t define the problem they’re addressing, or even what AI is, the same way, he added.

AI remains a “black box” on many levels, said Yonathan Arbel, University of Alabama School of Law director of AI legal studies. “We only have sort of an initial understanding of what’s going on inside the AI systems,” he said. As AI is incorporated into critical infrastructure, “the 'let’s try once and see what happens' policy is not a prudent approach."

Chris Chambers Goodman, professor at Pepperdine Caruso School of Law, said the U.S. is moving away from the Biden administration’s focus on safety, security and privacy and instead focusing on accelerating AI deployment. Goodman questioned whether “innovation unfettered” is more important than safe deployment. “There are ways to innovate responsibly,” she said. People say, “'I have to be able to do whatever I want, and then we’ll figure out what the parameters should be later.'” She said that thinking seems part of the Trump focus.

The states should serve as the laboratories for AI policy, Goodman added. Then Congress can decide on legislation based on best practices as seen in the states. “We know that our Congress is having a very hard time coming up with legislation that they can agree on” and launching a “thoughtful process” to better understand AI. Goodman also questioned claims that China will see huge economic advantages by moving faster than the U.S. on AI.

State preemption is a delicate balance, said Sarah Oh Lam, vice president of strategic initiatives at the Technology Policy Institute. “The states do have an interest in legislating in certain areas, but that doesn’t mean that they should be able to hold up innovation for the rest of the country,” she said.

“We’ve got state laws that are going all over the place and some are very specific and focused and some are very general," Goodman said. They disagree on “what should be regulated and what should be protected.”

Hill View

Senate Republicans on Wednesday welcomed Trump’s plan. Commerce Chairman Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told us he’s “working hand in hand” with the White House. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said, “Being the only person in the Senate chamber who voted for the moratorium, I’m glad to see that the president recognizes how important it is for the federal government to preempt state law, get it right, protect children but also not put needless barriers to American AI innovators.”

Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., on Wednesday sent letters to Alphabet, Anthropic, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI and xAI asking them to reject the action plan. Markey noted implementation of the plan and EO remain unclear. He told us Wednesday the action plan will have “catastrophic” impacts on states’ environmental laws to the benefit of Big Tech and broadband “barons.”

Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., told us the president’s plan is similar to the AI roadmap developed in 2024 by then-Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and his AI working group. “Honestly, I think we’re all on the same wavelength” in promoting U.S. innovation, he said. Rounds added that he doesn’t equate the provisions in the plan to those in the moratorium. The White House is moving ahead because it doesn’t believe Congress has acted quickly enough to protect patents, copyrights, other IP rights and, to a lesser extent, privacy rights, he said.

The Trump plan “leaves states in a lurch; it’s unclear which state laws will be considered ‘burdensome’ and which federal funds are on the line,” said Grace Gedye, AI policy analyst at Consumer Reports. “Earlier this month, Big Tech lobbyists tried to insert a 10-year moratorium on state AI laws into the budget bill, but a bipartisan group of senators voted overwhelmingly to reject it.” Gedye said “at a time of deep political division, there is rare and welcome consensus that states should be allowed to continue advancing AI rules that protect consumers.”

For Patrick Halley, president of the Wireless Infrastructure Association,“Wireless infrastructure is essential to the future of AI, with wireless networks and mobile edge computing simultaneously fueling, consuming, and integrating the data that powers AI.” Halley added in his statement that the wireless industry looks forward to "working with the administration and Congress to ensure America’s wireless infrastructure keeps pace with the demands of the rapidly evolving AI ecosystem.”

Incompas CEO Chip Pickering also praised the plan. “Every AI application requires reliable, high-capacity networks with ultra-low latency,” Pickering said. “We're pleased to see continued recognition that America's AI dominance depends on comprehensive infrastructure modernization from coast to coast.”

State Perspective

The California Privacy Protection Agency condemned the White House proposal. "The AI Action Plan creates a false choice between innovation and protecting Americans -- states like California have already proven we can and should have both,” said CPPA Executive Director Tom Kemp in an emailed statement. “While federal action stalled, states stepped up with common-sense safeguards, and now this plan potentially punishes them for filling the vacuum. Yet, penalizing states for providing privacy and safety protections leaves Americans more vulnerable to AI’s risks, while undermining AI’s promise."

Vermont Rep. Monique Priestley (D) believes the “federal administration’s AI plan crosses a dangerous line by trying to strip independent agencies like the FTC and FCC of their objectivity, while also threatening state authority and using federal funding to silence oversight,” she told us in a text message. Priestley was announced Tuesday as co-chair of a bipartisan national task force on state AI policy (see 2507220025). “State lawmakers are on the front lines of protecting people from AI-driven harms like fraud, surveillance, and discrimination. If Washington doesn't act independently, it should at least step aside and let states do their job," she said Wednesday.

Meanwhile, the sponsor of a Wisconsin comprehensive privacy bill, state Rep. Shannon Zimmerman (R), told us he hasn’t dug into the White House plan's details yet but applauds more U.S. investment in AI. However, he noted that he previously signed a letter opposing Congress’ proposed 10-year moratorium on state AI policy. “States should have the freedom to do what they need to do,” said Zimmerman, though “I don't think anybody should be rushing to legislate and put policy around AI just yet.” It’s “super early” and “could be premature.” That said, the Wisconsin lawmaker supported addressing “super obvious” AI problems like using deepfakes to manipulate an election.

Connecticut State Sen. James Maroney (D) sees the plan to possibly preempt states as “similar -- but a little less clear” than Congress’ proposed moratorium “because you’re relying on agencies now to make interpretations,” he said in an interview. The White House plan “leaves a lot to interpretation on what could be unnecessarily restricting innovation,” he added. “It remains to be seen how this will play out. A lot of it appears to be tied to funding, which not many of the states are accessing right now.”

Unlike the Trump administration, the Connecticut senator doesn’t “believe that protecting people and promoting innovation are mutually exclusive,” he said. Maroney’s bill to regulate AI failed in the state legislature earlier this year (see 2506040051). He said the AI plan’s release doesn’t affect his pursuit of a state AI policy.