Protecting Children While Federalizing AI
Dec 18, 2025 by FACT
It's indisputable – we are living in the age of Artificial Intelligence. For some, that fact inspires hope. For others, fear.
Parents are right to be concerned about how AI can impact their children’s well-being. The negative consequences of unmonitored AI use are imminently clear. What’s unclear is what the government plans to do about it.
Thus far, American-based AI companies have enjoyed relative freedom to pursue advancements without legal constraints. This has allowed the United States to rise to the top of the global AI race. Lawmakers and industry leaders have expressed concerns that as states begin regulating AI, it will inhibit the US’s dominance in the field. Over 1,000 regulatory bills have already been proposed at the state level to restrict AI.
In order to remedy this, Trump signed a “One Rule” executive order on December 11 to federalize AI regulation. The order states:
This reasoning is not without merit, though it does impede states’ sovereignty to regulate the technology within their own borders. At this point, we can only hope the Trump administration stays true to its word and ensures children are protected under federal AI regulations. To that end, the Institute for Family Studies (IFS) penned a letter to Trump on behalf of over a dozen child safety advocates and organizations. Read an excerpt of the letter below:
Parents are right to be concerned about how AI can impact their children’s well-being. The negative consequences of unmonitored AI use are imminently clear. What’s unclear is what the government plans to do about it.
Thus far, American-based AI companies have enjoyed relative freedom to pursue advancements without legal constraints. This has allowed the United States to rise to the top of the global AI race. Lawmakers and industry leaders have expressed concerns that as states begin regulating AI, it will inhibit the US’s dominance in the field. Over 1,000 regulatory bills have already been proposed at the state level to restrict AI.
In order to remedy this, Trump signed a “One Rule” executive order on December 11 to federalize AI regulation. The order states:
To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation. But excessive State regulation thwarts this imperative. First, State-by-State regulation by definition creates a patchwork of 50 different regulatory regimes that makes compliance more challenging, particularly for start-ups. Second, State laws are increasingly responsible for requiring entities to embed ideological bias within models. For example, a new Colorado law banning “algorithmic discrimination” may even force AI models to produce false results in order to avoid a “differential treatment or impact” on protected groups. Third, State laws sometimes impermissibly regulate beyond State borders, impinging on interstate commerce.
My Administration must act with the Congress to ensure that there is a minimally burdensome national standard — not 50 discordant State ones. The resulting framework must forbid State laws that conflict with the policy set forth in this order. That framework should also ensure that children are protected, censorship is prevented, copyrights are respected, and communities are safeguarded. A carefully crafted national framework can ensure that the United States wins the AI race, as we must.
This reasoning is not without merit, though it does impede states’ sovereignty to regulate the technology within their own borders. At this point, we can only hope the Trump administration stays true to its word and ensures children are protected under federal AI regulations. To that end, the Institute for Family Studies (IFS) penned a letter to Trump on behalf of over a dozen child safety advocates and organizations. Read an excerpt of the letter below:
We were alarmed to hear—just hours after we learned that Republican Leadership agreed with us that it was unwise to include preemption in the NDAA—that the White House was considering an executive order that would seek to stop states from enacting and enforcing AI safety measures. As you know, federal preemption is deeply unpopular with the American public. A recent poll by the Institute for Family Studies and YouGov finds that Americans oppose AI preemption by a margin of 3 to 1.
While we understand your concern that a patchwork could inhibit AI innovation, we also know that our children cannot afford to have the minimal protections we have won for them stripped away while waiting for Congress to act. If we handcuff state laws without passing strong federal ones, there will be a gap in accountability and American children will suffer. This Monday, a group of grieving parents and child safety advocates gathered at the National Gallery to project messages in opposition to preemption and tell their tragic stories of Big Tech’s products killing their children. Parents who have lost their loved ones have fought for years for protections at the state level. While the federal government continually failed them, these advocates won hard-fought, basic protections in the states. Preemption—whether through legislation or executive order—turns their advocacy through suffering into a tool for industry to wield against them. Instead, the President of the United States should stand with the heartbroken and the aggrieved, as well as those who lack the power to protect their own children from a Big Tech industry that callously preys upon them.
While we understand your concern that a patchwork could inhibit AI innovation, we also know that our children cannot afford to have the minimal protections we have won for them stripped away while waiting for Congress to act. If we handcuff state laws without passing strong federal ones, there will be a gap in accountability and American children will suffer. This Monday, a group of grieving parents and child safety advocates gathered at the National Gallery to project messages in opposition to preemption and tell their tragic stories of Big Tech’s products killing their children. Parents who have lost their loved ones have fought for years for protections at the state level. While the federal government continually failed them, these advocates won hard-fought, basic protections in the states. Preemption—whether through legislation or executive order—turns their advocacy through suffering into a tool for industry to wield against them. Instead, the President of the United States should stand with the heartbroken and the aggrieved, as well as those who lack the power to protect their own children from a Big Tech industry that callously preys upon them.
Although Trump has since signed the executive order referenced in IFS’s letter, there is still room for dialogue about how the federal government can protect children from the dangers of AI on behalf of parents and state governments. The president’s highest obligation is to protect the most vulnerable citizens of this nation – children. While staying ahead in the AI game is certainly of national importance, it pales in comparison to the calling of protecting children from the proven harms of AI.
