Analyzing Trump's AI Action Plan: Implications for Attorneys
The Trump Administration just released its AI Action Plan following the January 2025 Executive Order 14179, Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence. The Action Plan is intended to fulfill this policy objective of maintaining and strengthening "America's global AI dominance" while advancing "human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security."
During the formulation of the Plan, the White House conducted public consultation, collecting more than 10,000 submissions from academic institutions, industry associations, private companies, and government agencies.
This article examines the main points of the Action Plan and explores its implications for both plaintiff attorneys and corporate counsel.
What’s in the AI Action Plan?
The Plan outlines a national strategy to maintain America's leadership in artificial intelligence. Rather than heavy-handed government regulation, the strategy emphasizes empowering private sector innovation while ensuring national security and global competitiveness. The plan outlines its primary objective as:
"Winning the AI race will usher in a new golden age of human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security for the American people."
The framework rests on three core pillars: fostering technological innovation through reduced regulatory barriers and increased research funding, building digital infrastructure to support AI development and deployment, and strengthening international partnerships while protecting national security interests. The Plan outlines over 90 specific federal actions designed to accelerate AI advancement while maintaining America's strategic advantages.
4 key components of the bill include:
- Removing regulatory barriers: Federal agencies are directed to “eliminate onerous regulations” that slow AI development and adoption. The administration is actively seeking private sector input on rules that impede AI, signaling a strong deregulatory stance meant to unleash innovation.
- Rapid infrastructure expansion: The plan calls for “expediting and modernizing permits” to accelerate the buildout of AI infrastructure like data centers and semiconductor fabs. It also launches initiatives to grow the skilled workforce needed for this infrastructure, including training more electricians and HVAC technicians, to ensure AI projects have the necessary power and talent.
- Exporting American AI: To bolster US influence abroad, the Commerce and State Departments will partner with industry to export "full stack" AI technology packages, including hardware, software, and AI models, to allied nations. The goal is to expand the global reach of American AI and counter rival powers by promoting US technology and standards internationally.
- Unbiased AI systems: The plan pushes for AI free from perceived political bias. Federal procurement rules will be updated so that government agencies only purchase AI models that are objective and not built on bias training data.
The plan does not introduce new AI-specific regulations or ethical requirements. Topics like AI-driven misinformation and algorithmic bias, which were central to earlier policies such as President Biden’s 2023 AI Executive Order, are either omitted or addressed from a pro-innovation perspective. For instance, the plan sidesteps questions around AI and copyright. Trump argued that trying to enforce copyright on every piece of training data would severely disadvantage US companies, suggesting that such matters should be left to the courts.
Federal vs. State Regulation: Toward One National Standard
Trump's Action Plan had to balance the complex relationship between federal oversight and state-level AI regulations. Across the country, states including New York, Texas, Utah, and Colorado have enacted or proposed their own AI governance frameworks, creating what many view as an inconsistent regulatory landscape.
Earlier this year, the administration even floated a dramatic measure: a 10-year federal moratorium on state AI regulations as part of its “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (H.R. 1). While that provision was dropped from the final legislation, it is indicative of the Administration's views on a patchwork of AI state laws. In Trump’s opinion, without one national approach, “you end up in litigation with 43 states at one time.”
How is the Action Plan addressing the state-federal divide?
Rather than directly preempting state laws (which would likely require Congressional action), the Plan takes a more measured, indirect approach. For instance, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is directed to use federal funding leverage: agencies administering discretionary grants are to consider a state’s AI regulatory climate when making funding decisions and limit funding if a state’s laws would hinder the funded AI projects.
Another directive in the plan tasks the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with evaluating whether state AI regulations interfere with its mandate over interstate communications. This hints at a path to selective federal preemption: if, say, a state’s AI law impedes services or commerce that fall under FCC jurisdiction, the FCC could assert that the state law is preempted by federal authority. The plan stops short of explicitly declaring all state AI laws preempted, but it leaves the door open for agencies to push back against state requirements on an as-needed basis.
It’s worth noting that the plan acknowledges a role for state AI laws, as long as they are reasonable and not overly burdensome to innovation. In practice, however, that distinction may be subjective. For now, the clear direction of policy is for Washington to take the lead on AI governance and avoid a fragmented system of 50 different state rules.
A recent National Law Review article agrees, warning that “hasty” and uncoordinated AI laws at the state level act like “sea walls” that block the natural flow of innovation. The article states that “many existing legal frameworks – from IP and privacy to product liability and discrimination law – already apply to AI,” so lawmakers should be cautious about “layering entirely new AI-specific
Similarly, OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman has testified that complying with 50 different AI regimes would be “quite burdensome” and that “one federal framework that is light-touch” would best enable US companies to move at the speed needed to compete globally.
Of course, there is another side to this debate. Consumer advocates and civil rights groups have raised concerns that blocking state AI rules could leave citizens unprotected, especially if the federal government itself isn’t imposing strong guardrails. Many state AI bills aim to address real worries, from algorithms that discriminate in hiring or lending, to AI systems that might jeopardize safety or privacy. Critics argue that a light-touch federal standard might serve tech industry interests but could undercut transparency and accountability.
This Might Interest You: Exploring the Legal and Ethical Issues of AI in Law
Implications for Litigation and Plaintiff Attorneys
The courtroom is likely to remain the primary venue for addressing AI-related harms in the absence of detailed regulation.
For example, one ongoing case involves claims that an AI chatbot contributed to a young person’s suicide; it’s a tragic scenario prompting courts to examine how existing tort law, negligence or wrongful death, can apply to AI products. We can expect more novel lawsuits of this nature, as attorneys test the boundaries of liability for AI developers, employers using AI, and others deploying these technologies.
For plaintiff-side lawyers, the current environment has both advantages and disadvantages. On one hand, fewer regulatory constraints might mean more instances of harm or rights violations, which could lead to a rise in people seeking legal redress. On the other hand, the lack of specific regulations or clear standards can make such cases more challenging to litigate. We may see questions like: what duty of care does a company have in testing an AI model before deployment? How do you prove an AI’s negligence or design defect? How do you measure damages if, say, an AI spreads defamatory information? These uncertainties mean that plaintiff attorneys will need to be creative and informed about both the technology and the patchwork of possibly applicable laws.
Implications for Corporate Lawyers and Compliance
Trump's AI Action Plan eases compliance requirements for the private sector. Corporate counsel should monitor how the OMB and FCC directives play out: if certain state laws are nullified due to funding pressure or preemption, compliance strategies will need to adjust accordingly.
The pro-innovation bent also presents business opportunities. The government is inviting private sector collaboration, from building AI infrastructure with federal support to participating in export programs that send US AI tech abroad.
At the same time, fewer explicit regulations do not equate to zero risk. With regulators taking a lighter touch, the burden shifts to companies and their counsel to self-police AI practices to avoid litigation or PR crises. Corporate counsel should continue implementing internal AI governance: conducting bias testing, ensuring transparency, securing data privacy, and following industry best practices to demonstrate reasonable care.
It's also important for companies to stay aware of sector-specific AI guidance. Even if broad federal AI regulation is trimmed, agencies could enforce existing laws in the AI context. The FTC has warned it will use its authority against unfair or deceptive AI practices, while the FDA might scrutinize AI in medical devices under its existing safety mandate. Corporate counsel in regulated industries should interpret Trump's plan in context: it encourages innovation, but does not suspend baseline protections. Corporate lawyers should look to current laws as a guide for AI compliance.
Maintaining High Ethical and Legal Standards
Trump's AI Action Plan places the burden of ethical AI development on private companies. Businesses must build their own internal controls to operate responsibly.
The lack of federal AI regulations doesn't reduce the need for strong ethical standards; it actually increases it. Companies that innovate with AI while maintaining strict ethical protocols will not only avoid legal exposure but also gain lasting competitive advantages.
Legal firms need practical systems and protocols that prioritize ethical use, data security, and compliance. At Darrow, we've developed solutions that show how AI can support legal professionals while maintaining high ethical standards and protecting sensitive information.
We've built a data intelligence platform using large language models and machine learning algorithms with strict safeguards. The platform analyzes and clusters publicly available data, allowing our Legal Intelligence team to identify patterns and spot potential legal violations. Our approach emphasizes data security, transparency, and compliance with ethical and regulatory standards.
We never input sensitive client information into our systems and enforce rigorous validation for all AI-generated outputs. Data is anonymized and desensitized where necessary, and we maintain human oversight throughout the violation detection process to ensure our technology supports legal professionals without compromising ethical or legal standards.
This approach allows us to use AI responsibly while helping partners build stronger, evidence-backed cases. As AI regulation continues to develop, companies that prioritize ethical implementation now will be better positioned to succeed in an increasingly AI-driven legal market.
This Might Interest You:
Partner With Darrow to Grow Your Practice
