With deep experience navigating the complex corridors where global compliance, intellectual property, and cutting-edge technology meet, Desiree Sainthrope has become a leading authority on the intricate dance between innovation and regulation. Her work drafting and analyzing major international agreements gives her a unique perspective on the recent White House executive order aimed at preempting state-level AI laws. The order, championed by President Trump’s AI czar David Sacks, has ignited a firestorm, pitting a desire for a single federal standard against the realities of coalition-building in Washington and the constitutional rights of states. We sat down with Desiree to unpack the fallout from this aggressive move, exploring the breakdown of a promising congressional deal, the creation of a powerful bipartisan opposition, and the profound uncertainty this “whiplash” has caused for the very industry it was meant to help.
The article highlights a clash between David Sacks’ executive order and a potential congressional deal. Could you walk us through the specific negotiations for the defense bill compromise that fell apart, and how Sacks’ reported “bulldozing style” directly contributed to that legislative failure?
It was a classic Washington story of a window of opportunity opening and then slamming shut. The tech industry, reeling from a failed attempt to insert a preemption provision into a bill that was defeated 99-to-1, had shifted tactics. They were carefully assembling the pieces of a real compromise. The idea was to attach a deal to the must-pass defense bill, giving Democrats and skeptical Republicans new federal rules on child safety and frontier AI models in exchange for a moratorium on most state laws. There was a real feeling, just before Thanksgiving, that an “aperture for negotiation” existed. But the White House, led by Sacks, reportedly had no interest in that kind of give-and-take. Multiple sources familiar with the talks said he was unwilling to make the necessary compromises. Instead of using the White House’s influence to press lawmakers like Steve Scalise to negotiate, the message was to just ram it through. This intransigence, this “bulldozing” as one person called it, directly caused the effort to fizzle out and killed what many felt was the best chance for preemption in the entire administration.
The order sparked backlash not just from Democrats like Gavin Newsom, but also Republicans like Ron DeSantis. What specific legal or states’ rights arguments are these Republican governors making, and what does this bipartisan opposition reveal about the future of regulating emerging technology in the U.S.?
This is what makes the situation so politically fascinating and perilous for the administration. The pushback isn’t just partisan; it’s ideological and constitutional. Governor Newsom’s reaction was visceral, calling it a “con,” which you’d expect from a Democratic leader in California. But then you have Florida’s Governor DeSantis, a Republican, stating very clearly that his state “has a right” to regulate AI and that he’s confident they would prevail in a legal challenge. This is a powerful states’ rights argument that resonates deeply within the GOP. You’re seeing a broad, almost unprecedented coalition forming in opposition. We’re talking about kids’ safety groups, Republican attorneys general, and even figures like Marjorie Taylor Greene all denouncing this federal overreach. What it reveals is that AI regulation is no longer a niche tech policy issue. Sacks’ aggressive maneuver has transformed it into a high-profile national political fight. It’s become a “thing,” as one expert put it, and that makes achieving any kind of national consensus monumentally more difficult.
While aiming to reduce a “patchwork of regulation,” the order reportedly created an “uncertain future” for businesses. Could you elaborate on the specific legal and operational challenges this “whiplash” causes for AI companies, particularly given the threat of court challenges to the order’s authority?
The irony is staggering. The stated goal was to create a single federal standard, which businesses crave for predictability. Yet, this executive order has achieved the exact opposite. As Bilal Zuberi from Red Glass Ventures pointed out, “Businesses don’t like uncertainty.” This unilateral action is on very shaky legal ground. An executive order is not a law passed by Congress, and it’s almost certain to be challenged in court by states. For an AI company, this is a nightmare. Do you follow the executive order and ignore state laws, hoping the federal government wins in court? Or do you comply with state laws, assuming the order will be struck down? This creates operational chaos. As the CEO of Gavel, Dorna Moini, described it, “It’s whiplash.” Instead of reducing the patchwork, the order has thrown a blanket of legal chaos over it. Companies now face a period of prolonged litigation and instability, which chills investment and makes long-term planning incredibly difficult.
Sacks is credited with major wins on crypto and China policy, yet sources claim he “doesn’t understand how government works.” Based on the failed preemption talks, what key steps in building a legislative coalition did he miss, and what could he have conceded to secure a win?
This really gets to the heart of the conflict between a Silicon Valley mindset and the mechanics of Washington. Success in the private sector, especially in venture capital, often involves decisive, top-down action. But governing is about building consensus. The sources in the report suggest Sacks fundamentally missed this. He didn’t seem to understand the need to “concede on minor things in order to get a win.” A viable coalition was forming around a compromise: preemption in exchange for tangible protections, particularly for children online. This was the concession on the table. He could have blessed that deal, using his White House position to bring reluctant Republicans like Scalise along and engage with key Democrats like Maria Cantwell. Instead, he reportedly saw the order as leverage to jam Congress, a move that completely backfired by causing everyone to “dig in their corners.” He missed the crucial step of listening, negotiating, and building trust, which is the currency of legislative success.
The final executive order was reportedly softened to include a carveout letting states regulate AI’s impact on children. Can you provide more details on this concession? For example, how does it work in practice, and is it substantial enough to mend relationships with concerned lawmakers?
This was a late-game attempt at damage control, but it feels like putting a bandage on a gaping wound. After the draft order leaked and sparked a firestorm of protest, particularly from Republican governors concerned about their ability to protect kids, Sacks held a special meeting to assuage their fears. The result was this carveout in the final order, which essentially says the federal preemption push will not override state laws specifically targeting AI’s impact on children. In practice, this means a state like Utah could still pass a law restricting how AI is used in social media algorithms targeting minors, for example, without the Department of Justice immediately suing them under the authority of this order. But is it substantial enough? I’m skeptical. The core of the order is still an aggressive assertion of federal power. While the carveout is a nod to a major political concern, the administration’s “bulldozing” approach has already “poisoned the well.” It may quiet some of the most immediate outrage, but it doesn’t rebuild the trust necessary for the kind of broad legislative compromise they originally walked away from.
What is your forecast for achieving a comprehensive federal AI law? Considering the executive order has “poisoned the well” and created a national political fight, what is the most likely path forward for federal preemption over the next two years?
My forecast is quite pessimistic, at least for the short term. The administration’s strategy has turned a complex policy negotiation into a political brawl, and that makes compromise nearly impossible. The path forward for federal preemption is now through the courts, not Congress. We are going to see protracted legal battles as states challenge the executive order’s authority. Governors like Newsom won’t back down; if anything, they’ll feel emboldened to push their own regulations even more aggressively to assert their authority. The opportunity for a grand legislative bargain, the kind that was being negotiated for the defense bill, is gone for now. Preemption is, as one source said, “on life support.” Instead of moving toward a unified national framework, this action has likely guaranteed two more years of a deepening patchwork of state laws, legal chaos, and political gridlock at the federal level.
