US President Donald Trump is considering signing an executive order that would seek to challenge state efforts to regulate artificial intelligence through lawsuits and the withholding of federal funding, WIRED has learned.

A draft of the order viewed by WIRED directs US attorney general Pam Bondi to create an “AI Litigation Task Force,” whose purpose is to sue states in court for passing AI regulations that allegedly violate federal laws governing things like free speech and interstate commerce.

Trump could sign the order, which is currently titled “Eliminating State Law Obstruction of National AI Policy,” as early as this week, according to four sources familiar with the matter. A White House spokesperson told WIRED that “discussion about potential executive orders is speculation.”

The order says that the AI Litigation Task Force will work with several White House technology advisors, including the special adviser for AI and crypto, David Sacks, to determine which states are violating federal laws detailed in the order. It points to state regulations that “require AI models to alter their truthful outputs” or compel AI developers to “report information in a manner that would violate the First Amendment or any other provision of the Constitution,” according to the draft.

The order specifically cites recently enacted AI safety laws in California and Colorado that require AI developers to publish transparency reports about how they train models, among other provisions. Big Tech trade groups, including Chamber of Progress—which is backed by Andreessen Horowitz, Google, and OpenAI—have vigorously lobbied against these efforts, which they describe as a “patchwork” approach to AI regulation that hampers innovation. These groups are lobbying instead for a light-touch set of federal laws to guide AI progress.

“If the president wants to win the AI race, the American people need to know that AI is safe and trustworthy," says Cody Venzke, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union. “This draft only undermines that trust.”

The order comes as Silicon Valley has been upping the pressure on proponents of state AI regulations. For example, a super PAC funded by Andreessen Horowitz, OpenAI cofounder Greg Brockman, and Palantir cofounder Joe Lonsdale recently announced a campaign against New York Assembly member Alex Bores, the author of a state AI safety bill.

House Republicans have also renewed their effort to pass a blanket moratorium on states introducing laws regulating AI after an earlier version of the measure failed.

The draft order gives the White House authority to challenge state AI laws that violate the Commerce Clause, a provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states. Andreessen Horowitz’s head of AI policy and chief legal and policy officer published a letter in September arguing that several state AI laws raise concerns under the Commerce Clause.

The order also instructs the Department of Commerce to craft guidelines that could make states ineligible for funding intended to expand access to high-speed internet. The Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program, which is run out of the Commerce Department, is valued at more than $42 billion. In addition, the order calls on White House senior AI advisers to draft legislation establishing a federal regulatory framework to govern AI.

“Both the law and the Constitution prevent the President from unilaterally attaching strings to federal funds, especially when the stakes are this high,” says Venzke.

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump posted a statement on Truth Social deriding the “overregulation” of AI and accusing some states of embedding “DEI ideology into AI models, producing ‘Woke AI.’” The draft order seems to tackle these allegations, calling on the Federal Trade Commission to declare that states cannot pass laws that manipulate AI outputs.

“To win, American AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation. But State legislatures have introduced over 1,000 AI bills that threaten to undermine that innovative culture,” the draft order reads. “My Administration will act to ensure that there is a minimally burdensome national standard – not 50 discordant State ones.”