The Blackburn bill got the headlines. The White House already had its own blueprint.
On March 20, 2026, the Trump Administration’s Office of Science and Technology Policy released what legal analysts are calling a comprehensive National Policy Framework for AI. According to analysis by Covington & Burling’s Global Policy Watch, the framework includes more than two dozen legislative recommendations to Congress, a significant document that is distinct in both origin and mechanism from the Blackburn legislation this hub covered previously.
This distinction matters for compliance teams. The Blackburn bill is congressional legislation moving through its own process. The OSTP framework is an executive branch document articulating what the White House wants Congress to enact. They can align, diverge, or both pass in modified form. Right now, they represent two separate federal preemption visions that organizations tracking state AI law exposure need to monitor in parallel.
What the OSTP framework reportedly proposes.
Per Covington & Burling’s review, the framework recommends centralizing AI regulation within the federal government with the stated goal of establishing comprehensive federal approaches, consistent with President Trump’s December 2025 AI Preemption Executive Order and the July 2025 AI Action Plan. According to legal analysts who reviewed the framework, its recommendations reportedly include provisions addressing child safety, free speech, intellectual property, and workforce protection, though the primary OSTP document is not yet confirmed in this hub’s source log.
Freshfields LLP’s analysis confirms that the framework is specifically designed to preempt state AI regulation, a function distinct from Blackburn’s approach, which pursued the same goal through direct legislation naming specific state laws.
No new regulatory body.
Both this framework and the Blackburn bill reject creating a new federal AI agency. The OSTP framework channels proposed oversight through existing sector-specific federal agencies, per Freshfields’ analysis. That’s a policy choice with real compliance implications: enforcement would come from the FDA, FTC, SEC, and similar bodies acting within their existing mandates, not from a purpose-built AI regulator.
What compliance teams should know right now.
Three things. First, the OSTP framework is recommendations to Congress, not law, not an executive order, not an enforcement action. “The framework recommends” is accurate language; “the framework requires” is not.
Second, if any version of federal preemption passes, the compliance work organizations have done for California, Colorado, Texas, and other state AI laws may need to be reassessed. That reassessment is not simple. It’s worth beginning a mapping exercise now rather than when legislation is imminent.
Third, two federal preemption visions now exist simultaneously. The OSTP framework and the Blackburn bill don’t have to converge. Congress could pass neither, one, or a hybrid. Compliance strategy that assumes one outcome is already behind.
TJS perspective: the pattern here isn’t subtle. Three federal AI preemption actions in rapid succession, an executive order in December 2025, the Blackburn bill, now an OSTP framework. The direction of travel is clear. The destination is still uncertain.