Executive Orders (EOs) primarily guide how the executive branch interprets and enforces existing laws; they cannot create new ones. For an EO to have staying power, the administration must embody it in departmental regulations and processes. Without congressional action, EOs are often 'more flash than bank' and don't drive behavior outside the administration.
Related Insights
The Trump administration's strategy for control isn't writing new authoritarian laws, but aggressively using latent executive authority that past administrations ignored. This demonstrates how a democracy's own structures can be turned against it without passing a single new piece of legislation, as seen with the FCC.
Cheering for a president to use executive orders or emergency powers is short-sighted. The opposition will eventually gain power and use those same expanded authorities for policies you oppose, creating a cycle of escalating executive action.
A draft executive order aimed at preempting state AI laws includes deadlines for nearly every action except for the one tasking the administration to create a federal replacement. This strategic omission suggests the real goal is to block both state and federal regulation, not to establish a uniform national policy.
When Congress fails to act on a major crisis, executive agencies may stretch their existing legal authorities to address the problem (e.g., the COVID eviction moratorium). This often leads to legal challenges and accusations of overreach that stem from legislative paralysis.
The White House plans an executive order to "kneecap state laws aimed at regulating AI." This move, favored by some tech startups, would eliminate the existing patchwork of state-level safeguards around discrimination and privacy without necessarily replacing them with federal standards, creating a regulatory vacuum.
A former White House policy official, Dean Ball, gave the administration's executive order only a 30-35% chance of succeeding in court. This insider skepticism suggests the order may function more as a deterrent to states and a political statement than a legally sound strategy.
The new executive order on AI regulation does not establish a national framework. Instead, its primary function is to create a "litigation task force" to sue states and threaten to withhold funding, effectively using federal power to dismantle state-level AI safety laws and accelerate development.
The President's AI executive order aims to create a unified, industry-friendly regulatory environment. A key component is an "AI litigation task force" designed to challenge and preempt the growing number of state-level AI laws, centralizing control at the federal level and sidelining local governance.
Former DHS Secretary Napolitano details the sprint to launch DACA. It required creating a full-fledged federal program from scratch—designing forms, setting fees, training staff, and doing public outreach—in just two months. This shows that executive orders are not self-executing but require intense operational effort.
Despite expected legislative gridlock, investors should focus on the executive branch. The president's most impactful market tools, such as tariff policy and deregulation via executive agencies, do not require congressional approval. Significant policy shifts can therefore occur even when Congress is divided and inactive.
