On January 23, 2025, President Trump issued
a new Executive Order (EO) titled “Removing
Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial
Intelligence” (Trump EO). This EO replaces
President Biden’s Executive Order 14110 of
October 30, 2023, titled “Safe, Secure, and
Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial
Intelligence” (Biden EO), which was rescinded
on January 20, 2025, by Executive Order
14148.
The Trump EO signals a significant shift away from the Biden
administration’s emphasis on oversight, risk mitigation and
equity toward a framework centered on deregulation and
the promotion of AI innovation as a means of maintaining US
global dominance.
Key Differences Between the Trump EO and Biden EO
The Trump EO explicitly frames AI development as a matter of
national competitiveness and economic strength, prioritizing
policies that remove perceived regulatory obstacles to
innovation. It criticizes the influence of “engineered social
agendas” in AI systems and seeks to ensure that AI
technologies remain free from ideological bias. By contrast,
the Biden EO focused on responsible AI development,
placing significant emphasis on addressing risks such as bias,
disinformation and national security vulnerabilities. The Biden
EO sought to balance AI’s benefits with its potential harms
by establishing safeguards, testing standards and ethical
considerations in AI deployment and deployment.
Another significant shift in policy is the approach to
regulation. The Trump EO mandates an immediate review and
potential rescission of all policies, directives and regulations
established under the Biden EO that could be seen as
impediments to AI innovation. The Biden EO, however,
introduced a structured oversight framework, including
mandatory red-teaming for high-risk AI models, enhanced
cybersecurity protocols and monitoring requirements for AI
used in critical infrastructure. The Biden administration also
directed federal agencies to collaborate in the development
of best practices for AI safety and reliability efforts that the
Trump EO effectively halts.
The two EOs also diverge in their treatment of workforce
development and education. The Biden EO dedicated
resources to attracting and training AI talent, expanding visa
pathways for skilled workers and promoting public-private
partnerships for AI research and development. The Trump
EO, however, does not include specific workforce-related
provisions. Instead, the Trump EO seems to assume that
reducing federal oversight will naturally allow for innovation
and talent growth in the private sector.
Priorities for national security are also shifting. The Biden
EO mandated extensive interagency cooperation to assess
the risks AI poses to critical national security systems,
cyberinfrastructure and biosecurity. It required agencies such
as the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense
to conduct detailed evaluations of potential AI threats,
including the misuse of AI for chemical and biological weapon
development. The Trump EO aims to streamline AI governance
and reduce federal oversight, prioritizing a more flexible
regulatory environment and maintaining US AI leadership for
national security purposes.
The most pronounced ideological difference between the two
executive orders is in their treatment of equity and civil rights.
The Biden EO explicitly sought to address discrimination
and bias in AI applications, recognizing the potential for AI
systems to perpetuate existing inequalities. It incorporated
principles of equity and civil rights protection throughout
its framework, requiring rigorous oversight of AI’s impact in
areas such as hiring, healthcare and law enforcement. Not
surprisingly, the Trump EO did not focus on these concerns,
reflecting a broader philosophical departure from government
intervention in AI ethics and fairness – perhaps considering
existing laws that prohibit unlawful discrimination, such as
Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans
with Disabilities Act, as sufficient.
The two orders also take fundamentally different approaches
to global AI leadership. The Biden EO emphasized the
importance of international cooperation, encouraging US
engagement with allies and global organizations to establish
common AI safety standards and ethical frameworks. The
Trump EO, in contrast, appears to adopt a more unilateral
stance, asserting US leadership in AI without outlining
specific commitments to international collaboration.
Implications for the EU’s AI Act, Global AI and State Legal Frameworks
The Trump administration’s deregulatory approach comes at a time when other jurisdictions, particularly the EU, are moving toward stricter regulatory frameworks for AI. The EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act), which was adopted by the EU Parliament in March 2024, imposes comprehensive rules on the development and use of AI technologies, with a strong emphasis on safety, transparency, accountability and ethics. By categorizing AI systems based on risk levels, the EU AI Act imposes stringent requirements for high-risk AI systems, including mandatory third-party impact assessments, transparency standards and oversight mechanisms.
The Trump EO’s emphasis on reducing regulatory burdens
stands in stark contrast to the EU’s approach, which reflects
a precautionary principle that prioritizes societal safeguards
over rapid innovation. This divergence could create friction
between the US and EU regulatory environments, especially
for multinational companies that must navigate both systems.
Although the EU AI Act is being criticized as impeding
innovation, the lack of explicit ethical safeguards and risk
mitigation measures in the Trump EO also could weaken the
ability of US companies to compete in European markets,
where compliance with the EU AI Act’s rigorous standards is
a legal prerequisite for EU market access.
Globally, jurisdictions such as Canada, Japan, the UK and
Australia are advancing their own AI policies, many of which
align more closely with the EU’s focus on accountability
and ethical considerations than with the US’s pro-innovation
stance under the Trump administration. For example, Canada’s
Artificial Intelligence and Data Act emphasizes transparency
and responsible development, while Japan’s AI guidelines
promote trustworthy AI principles through multistakeholder
engagement. While the UK has a less regulated approach
than the EU, it has a strong accent on safety through the AI
Safety Institute.
The Trump administration’s decision to rescind the Biden EO
and prioritize a “clean slate” for AI policy also may complicate
efforts to establish global standards for AI governance.
While the EU, the G7 and other multilateral organizations
are working to align on key principles such as transparency,
fairness and safety, the US’s unilateral focus on deregulation
could limit its influence in shaping these global norms.
Additionally, the Trump administration’s pivot toward
deregulation risks creating a perception that the US
prioritizes short-term innovation gains over long-term ethical
considerations, potentially alienating allies and partners.
A final consideration is the potential for the Trump EO to
widen the gap between federal and state AI regulatory
regimes, inasmuch as it presages deregulation of AI at
the federal level. Indeed, while the EO signals a federal
shift toward prioritizing innovation by reducing regulatory
constraints, the precise contours of the new administration’s
approach to regulatory enforcement – including on issues
like data privacy, competition and consumer protection – will
become clearer as newly appointed federal agency leaders
begin implementing their agendas. At the same time, states
such as Colorado, California and Texas have already enacted
AI laws with varying scope and degrees of oversight. As
with state consumer privacy laws, increased state-level
activity in AI also would likely lead to increased regulatory
fragmentation, with states implementing their own rules
to address concerns related to high-risk AI applications,
transparency and sector-specific oversight.
Thus, in the absence of clear federal guidelines, leaving
businesses with a growing patchwork of state AI regulations
will complicate compliance across multiple jurisdictions.
Moreover, if Congress enacts an AI law that prioritizes
innovation over risk mitigation, stricter state regulations
could face federal preemption. Until then, organizations
must closely monitor both federal and state developments
to navigate this evolving and increasingly fragmented AI
regulatory landscape.
Ultimately, a key test for the Trump administration’s approach
to AI is whether it preserves and enhances US leadership
in AI or allows China to build a more powerful AI platform.
The US approach will undoubtedly drive investment and
innovation by US AI companies. But China may be able to
arrive at a collaborative engagement with international AI
governance initiatives, which would position China strongly as
an international leader in AI. Alternatively, is DeepSeek a flash
in the pan, a stimulus for US competition or a portent for the
future?
Conclusion
Overall, the Trump EO reflects a fundamental shift
in US AI policy, prioritizing deregulation and freemarket
innovation while reducing oversight and ethical
safeguards. However, this approach could create
challenges for US companies operating in jurisdictions
with stricter AI regulations, such as the EU, the UK,
Canada and Japan – as well as some of those states
in the US that have already enacted their own AI
regulatory regimes. The divergence between the US
federal government’s pro-innovation strategy and the
precautionary regulatory model pursued by the EU and
these US states underscores the need for companies
operating across these jurisdictions to adopt flexible
compliance strategies that account for varying regulatory
standards.
Our team continues to monitor these developments
and their implications for US and global AI policy. Please
contact us for guidance on navigating the evolving
regulatory landscape and ensuring compliance with
international AI governance frameworks.