- The Trump administration has taken several concrete steps toward a unified federal AI regulatory framework, according to a client alert from Latham & Watkins LLP.
- The moves build on Executive Order 14179, signed January 23, 2025, which revoked the Biden administration’s AI safety order and directed agencies to develop a National AI Action Plan.
- Sector-specific regulators—including the FDA, SEC, and DHS—have been directed to develop AI governance requirements within their existing statutory authority.
- Companies in regulated industries face the most immediate compliance exposure, while the broader AI industry remains subject to voluntary NIST frameworks pending further legislative action.
What Happened
The Trump administration has advanced a series of policy measures that collectively point toward a comprehensive federal approach to AI oversight, according to a client alert published by Latham & Watkins LLP. The analysis identifies executive and agency-level actions that mark a shift from the administration’s initial posture of removing regulatory barriers toward establishing affirmative governance structures for artificial intelligence.
The foundational action was Executive Order 14179, “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence,” signed on January 23, 2025. That order revoked President Biden’s October 2023 AI safety executive order and directed the Office of Science and Technology Policy to produce a National AI Action Plan within 180 days, establishing the blueprint for subsequent regulatory activity.
Why It Matters
Federal AI governance in the United States has until now been predominantly voluntary, sector-fragmented, and lacking a statutory baseline comparable to the European Union’s AI Act, which entered phased enforcement beginning in 2024. The Latham & Watkins analysis suggests current administration actions represent a meaningful step toward closing that gap—without requiring new Congressional authorization in most cases.
The broader context is a race among major economies to define AI governance norms. The EU AI Act classifies systems by risk tier and imposes binding requirements on high-risk applications; U.S. companies operating in both markets have faced divergent compliance demands. A more defined domestic framework would clarify obligations for those firms.
Technical Details
EO 14179 directed the National Institute of Standards and Technology to update its AI Risk Management Framework to align with the administration’s “pro-innovation” priorities. The order also instructed all federal agencies to identify existing regulations that could impede AI development and to either revise or rescind them. The stated policy rationale, as written in the order, was that “it is the policy of the United States to sustain and enhance America’s global AI dominance in order to promote human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security.”
The National AI Action Plan that followed directed sector-specific agencies to develop AI governance frameworks within existing statutory authority rather than seeking new legislation. The Food and Drug Administration, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Department of Transportation each received mandates to produce AI guidance applicable to their regulated sectors. This agency-by-agency approach means compliance standards vary by industry, with different timelines, documentation requirements, and enforcement mechanisms across sectors.
Who’s Affected
Financial services firms, healthcare providers, and critical infrastructure operators face the most immediate compliance obligations, as they are subject to sector-specific AI guidance from the SEC, FDA, and Department of Homeland Security, respectively. The Latham & Watkins alert notes that companies should treat agency-level AI rules as having near-equivalent weight to formal rulemaking, particularly where guidance is paired with enforcement signals.
AI developers without a regulated-sector footprint—including foundation model providers and general-purpose AI tool companies—remain subject to voluntary NIST guidelines for now, though the regulatory trajectory described in the alert suggests that status could change if legislative negotiations in the Senate Commerce Committee advance.
What’s Next
Congressional action represents the next decision point. Bipartisan AI legislation has been under active discussion, and whether the administration supports a statutory framework will determine whether comprehensive federal AI rules are ultimately grounded in executive action, agency rulemaking, or law. The Latham & Watkins alert advises companies to map current AI governance programs against emerging agency requirements before enforcement timelines crystallize.
Companies with AI deployments across multiple regulated sectors face the additional complexity of reconciling divergent agency standards, a gap the current inter-agency coordination structure has not yet resolved.
