A recent leak has brought to light a draft executive order from the White House that seeks to centralize regulatory authority over artificial intelligence (AI) at the federal level, preempting state laws. This proposal, which was anticipated to be signed, has sparked significant concern among legal experts and policymakers due to its broad provisions and the considerable power it would grant to David Sacks, a tech venture capitalist and Special Advisor for AI and Crypto.

The draft order requires various cabinet secretaries and agency heads to produce reports and guidance on punitive measures against states that implement their own AI regulations within a short timeframe. Notably, it instructs the Attorney General to form a legal task force aimed at initiating lawsuits against non-compliant states. Critics argue that this would effectively elevate Sacks to a pivotal role in U.S. AI policy, consolidating regulatory power in a manner that raises questions about accountability and oversight.

The political response has been swift, with both Democratic and some Republican lawmakers expressing opposition to the proposed order. Concerns have been raised regarding its potential threat to state sovereignty, particularly as it includes provisions that could withdraw federal funding from states that do not comply. This aspect has been viewed as a means to exert pressure on state legislatures, potentially undermining local governance and innovation in AI regulation.

Additionally, the draft notably excludes several key agencies that have previously played roles in AI policy development, such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). This omission has led to questions about the inclusivity and comprehensiveness of the proposed regulatory framework.

Despite initial plans for the executive order, it was ultimately not signed, leading to speculation about the internal dynamics within the administration and the influence of various factions, including those advocating for stricter regulations on large technology companies. This situation highlights the ongoing tensions between federal authority and state autonomy in the rapidly evolving field of AI, as well as the complexities of aligning diverse political interests around technology governance.

In a related development, political consultant Steve Kramer has publicly defied a federal court order requiring him to pay $22,500 to three voters following a lawsuit by the League of Women Voters. This lawsuit stemmed from Kramer's involvement in a robocall campaign that utilized an AI-generated voice mimicking former President Joe Biden, misleading voters just days before the New Hampshire presidential primary. The calls falsely suggested that participating in the primary would prevent voters from casting ballots in the general election.

Kramer, who was acquitted of criminal charges related to voter suppression, has characterized the lawsuit as a publicity stunt and has refused to pay a $6 million fine imposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The civil court's ruling has been emphasized by legal experts as a significant precedent against the misuse of AI in political campaigns. Meanwhile, the FCC has been developing regulations concerning AI, although there are indications of a shift towards deregulation under the current administration, raising concerns about the oversight of AI technologies in electoral processes.