The White House released its National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence on March 20, 2026, built on the foundation of a December 11, 2025 executive order that directed its creation. The framework contains more than two dozen legislative recommendations across seven thematic policy areas, among them AI infrastructure, intellectual property, child safety, and workforce development. It carries no independent legal force. Congress would have to act.
The centerpiece recommendation is federal preemption. The framework asks Congress to preempt state AI laws that “impose undue burdens” to ensure companies operate under a single national standard rather than a patchwork of state-by-state requirements. Legal analysts reviewing the framework report that carve-outs would include state authority over general child protection laws, consumer protection, fraud, data center zoning, and a state’s own use of AI, though the full scope of those exceptions would ultimately be defined by whatever legislation Congress passes. That scope is not yet settled.
The administration’s position on copyright is also explicit: the framework states that training AI models on copyrighted material does not violate copyright law, and recommends leaving the fair use question to the courts rather than resolving it through legislation. This is a policy position, not settled law. Courts remain the venue where that question will be decided.
On child safety, the framework encourages Congress to pass legislation requiring age-assurance mechanisms and parental controls in AI contexts, a policy area where multiple pending bills in Congress already overlap.
A parallel development arrived the same week. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) separately announced the TRUMP AMERICA AI Act discussion draft, described as intended to “codify” the president’s AI preemption executive order. That draft is distinct from the framework and has not been formally introduced as legislation. Both documents reflect the same underlying policy direction.
The timing sharpens the stakes. On March 26, the same day this analysis was being reported, Washington State Governor Bob Ferguson signed two AI bills into law. The federal government is recommending that Congress preempt state AI laws. A state government is simultaneously enacting them.
Compliance teams should read this framework carefully and resist the impulse to act on it prematurely. It recommends; it does not require. Companies with existing state AI compliance obligations are still bound by those obligations. The framework creates no safe harbor. As Cooley’s client alert put it, this is “the most concrete statement yet of where the administration wants Congress to take federal AI policy”, not a destination the industry has arrived at.
What to watch: whether the Blackburn draft advances to formal introduction; which of the framework’s seven policy areas attract early legislative traction; and whether other states follow Washington’s lead and enact laws that would become preemption targets if Congress acts.
The administration has drawn the map. The territory still belongs to whoever legislates first, and right now, states are moving faster than Congress.