Trump Administration Challenges State AI Laws Amid Concerns Over Bias

NewsWK — The Trump administration is intensifying its efforts to counter state laws regulating artificial intelligence (AI) that it perceives as ideologically driven. The administration has introduced a proposed policy from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that is open for public comment until July 31.

This initiative aims to prevent AI companies from manipulating their systems for undisclosed ideological purposes, which could mislead consumers and infringe upon federal regulations. FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson emphasized the agency’s interest in gathering feedback from both businesses and consumers regarding potential issues with AI systems being used for ideological motives.

One specific law mentioned in the proposal is Colorado‘s previous ban on “algorithmic discrimination,” which was designed to prevent AI outputs that could lead to biased decisions in employment, lending, and healthcare based on characteristics like race and gender. However, this provision has been repealed, and the law now focuses on regulating technology impacting significant consumer decisions.

In December 2025, President Trump issued an executive order aimed at state AI laws, establishing a Department of Justice AI Litigation Task Force to challenge such regulations. His directive also called for the FTC to develop guidelines regarding state laws that require modifications to the accurate outputs of AI models.

Despite these federal moves, experts suggest that states are likely to continue pushing forward with their own AI regulations. Tyler Thompson, a lawyer in Denver, noted that the FTC’s proposal could lead to legal claims against companies for deceptive practices based on how they manage AI models. He believes this could result in more targeted state policies focusing on issues like deepfakes and children’s safety, areas where there is bipartisan support.

Noah M. Kenney, an AI governance consultant, commented that the proposed statement from the FTC mainly serves as a political signal rather than an enforceable regulation. He raised concerns about potential First Amendment implications regarding the federal government’s attempt to define what constitutes a “neutral” or “accurate” output in AI systems.