Founders and communities are feeling the strain of fragmented AI policy in real ways, and that pressure is driving understandable calls for national coordination,” stated Daisy Thomas, AI Salon Director of Advocacy and Policy Development. “We applaud the Administration’s push for a national framework, but statements without action leave us in limbo. It is now on Congress to enact legislation that protects people, supports responsible innovation, and preserves state enforcement without crushing early-stage builders.

When the White House Pushes for National AI Policy: What This Moment Actually Reveals

The December 11, 2025 executive order on artificial intelligence has triggered intense reactions across the policy world. Some view it as overdue leadership. Others see it as federal overreach.

Both reactions miss the deeper truth.

This order does not resolve the central problem in AI governance. It exposes it.

Across the United States, states are racing to respond to real harms. Congress, meanwhile, has failed to provide a durable federal framework. Early-stage builders are caught in between, navigating a fast-moving patchwork of rules that few small teams can realistically track or comply with.

AI Salon’s community has lived this tension firsthand.

We have consistently argued that fragmentation is unsustainable, especially for startups, educators, and civic innovators who lack the resources of large incumbents. That is why we supported a temporary, explicit pause on new state AI legislation, paired with urgent congressional action toward a clear national standard (link to Founder Letter Support)

That position was not an endorsement of executive preemption; it was a recognition that coordination cannot emerge spontaneously from fifty parallel legislative processes.

Executive Orders Signal Pressure, Not Resolution

Executive orders direct federal agencies, but on their own, they cannot erase state authority.

What this order does do is signal how severe the pressure has become. The administration is reaching for indirect tools because Congress has left a vacuum. Conditional funding, agency rulemaking, and litigation are being explored not because they are ideal, but because no coherent alternative exists.

Even where executive action is legally permissible, it is temporary, contested, and vulnerable to reversal. Startups do not gain clarity from volatility. Communities do not gain protection from jurisdictional brinkmanship. On its own, the executive order is not a silver bullet, but ideally, it forces the debate on AI policy into action.

Why a Pause and a Federal Framework Still Go Together

Supporting a moratorium on new state AI laws is not a contradiction of federalism. It is a defense of fairness.

Without coordination, the current system rewards scale over care. Large companies absorb compliance costs. Smaller, more responsible builders exit the field. Innovation narrows. Public interest tools disappear.

A federal framework enacted by Congress can:

Establish baseline protections
Reduce compliance chaos
Preserve room for state enforcement and experimentation
Ensure accountability is not a luxury item

That work cannot be accomplished by executive order alone, no matter how forceful the language.

What AI Salon Advocates For

AI Salon’s position has been consistent, even as the policy environment has grown more volatile. We are not arguing for complete deregulation, nor for delay in addressing real harms. We are arguing for clarity, fairness, and durability in how AI is governed.

That means congressional leadership, not reliance on temporary executive action. It means national standards that set clear baseline protections while preserving states’ ability to enforce and protect their communities. And it means acknowledging that a fragmented regulatory environment disproportionately harms small teams, educators, and public-interest builders who lack the compliance infrastructure of large incumbents.

Our support for a temporary pause on new state AI legislation was rooted in this reality. It was not an endorsement of executive preemption. It was a recognition that coordination cannot emerge from fifty parallel legislative processes moving at different speeds. Without federal action, the current system rewards scale over care, pushes responsible early-stage builders out of the field, and narrows the range of tools available to the public.

As Congress considers its role, we urge lawmakers to apply four basic tests to any AI policy proposal.

First, embrace the entire ecosystem. Policy conversations must include small enterprises, diverse founders, educators, and civic innovators, not only large platforms and well-resourced incumbents.

Second, prioritize clarity over constraint. Clear, tailored guidance supports responsible development. Simply rewriting existing statutes by inserting the words “AI systems” without careful consideration creates confusion rather than protection. AI, like the internet before it, is a foundational enabling capability that cuts across sectors and use cases.

Third, avoid innovation inhibition. Applying the same rules to general-purpose models and narrow, use-specific systems risks freezing experimentation and discouraging adoption, particularly among small and regional businesses. We have already seen hesitation and pullback in states where poorly scoped rules were rushed into place.

Finally, fund AI readiness. Governance without education is incomplete. Preparing the future workforce requires investment in AI literacy, discernment, ethics, and implementation so responsibility is not limited to those who can afford outside expertise.

These principles are not abstract. They reflect the lived experience of builders and communities navigating today’s policy vacuum. Any durable national framework must be shaped by that reality if it is to protect people, support responsible innovation, and earn public trust.

The Real Risk Is Not State Action or Federal Action Alone

The real risk is continued federal inaction, paired with escalating pressure on states to fill the gap one by one.

If states retreat while Washington overreaches, the public loses twice. New York, California, Florida, and Ohio are already moving in divergent directions, underscoring how quickly the compliance map is fracturing in the absence of congressional leadership.

The alternative is harder, slower, and more democratic. It requires Congress to step into its constitutional role, informed by builders, educators, civil society, and communities who understand how AI systems actually operate in the real world.

This executive order should be read as a warning flare. The question now is whether Congress responds.

This executive order should be understood as a warning flare. The question now is whether Congress responds.