President Donald Trump’s recent executive order targeting state-level artificial intelligence (AI) regulation has thrust Montana and the nation into a heated debate over the balance between federal oversight and state autonomy. The December 2025 order, which directs the Department of Justice to establish a litigation task force to sue states with what it deems “onerous” AI laws, has sent ripples through legislatures, governor’s offices, and tech circles across the United States.
Montana, which had just wrapped up a legislative session marked by a flurry of AI-related bills, finds itself at the center of this national controversy. The state’s 2025 legislature passed laws addressing everything from generative AI—the process of using written prompts to create images—to AI’s use in elections and in state government business. These measures, which were largely bipartisan and not especially controversial within the state, aimed to provide guardrails and protections for Montanans as AI’s influence rapidly expands.
But Trump’s executive order, as reported by the Daily Montanan, says some state laws have gone too far, threatening to stymie innovation and U.S. global dominance in AI. “It is the policy of the United States to sustain and enhance the United States’ global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI,” the order reads. “A carefully crafted national framework can ensure that the United States wins the AI race, as we must. Until such a national standard exists, however, it is imperative that my administration takes action to check the most onerous and excessive laws emerging from the states that threaten to stymie innovation.”
This move has not only drawn the ire of Montana lawmakers but also ignited divisions within the Republican Party itself. The debate, which has simmered since the summer, pits Trump and his allies—who see a unified approach as essential to competing with China—against a coalition of state leaders and legislators who view the order as an affront to federalism and local control.
Montana’s legislative leaders have been vocal about the importance of state authority. “They voted for us to go to the legislature and pass laws that are in their best interest,” said Rep. Jill Cohenour, a Helena Democrat who sponsored one of the state’s AI bills. Cohenour, along with many colleagues, signed a letter in late November—joined by around 280 state lawmakers nationwide—urging Congress not to include any AI language in the National Defense Authorization Act that would limit state legislatures’ ability to create AI-related laws. The letter warned, “A blanket prohibition on state and local AI and automated decision-system regulation would abruptly cut off active democratic debate in statehouses and impose a sweeping pause on policymaking at the very moment when communities are seeking responsive solutions.”
Sen. Daniel Zolnikov, a Billings Republican deeply involved in Montana’s tech policy, urged patience and calm. “I believe people are jumping the gun and overreacting on what state laws would be overruled by the executive order,” he said. The state, he noted, has an interim study underway to examine AI issues and has already released guidelines for public schools.
Montana’s 2025 legislative achievements in AI policy are notable. Senate Bill 212, the Right to Compute Act, protects the individual use of AI while allowing the state to restrict it in limited circumstances. House Bill 514, sponsored by Cohenour, established legal rights to one’s name, image, and likeness, with penalties for violations. House Bill 178, from Rep. Braxton Mitchell, a Flathead Republican, limits AI use by local and state governments, specifically prohibiting uses such as “cognitive behavioral manipulation of a person or group,” and “classifying a person or group based on behavior, socioeconomic status, or personal characteristics resulting in unlawful discrimination.” Senate Bill 25, from Sen. Janet Ellis, a Helena Democrat, aims to curb AI-generated deepfakes in elections—a concern echoed by Sen. Shane Morigeau, who warned, “Just wait until the next big wave of political races comes in. It’s going to be weird.”
Trump’s executive order also targets the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program, a federal initiative created under President Joe Biden to expand internet access. Montana has received hundreds of millions from BEAD, but the program has faced hurdles, including issues with railroad companies and, under Trump, a shift toward satellite internet contracts with Amazon and SpaceX—companies that have embraced AI in their operations. Critics, such as Brendan Steinhauser, CEO of the Alliance for Secure AI, argue that threatening to cut BEAD funds is a way to “beat the states into submission” on AI regulation. “If they’re threatened with losing billions of dollars and funding for rural broadband, that might be a way to try and keep them out of this discussion,” Steinhauser told the Daily Montanan.
The executive order’s preemption policy has exposed deep rifts within the Republican Party. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, for example, has repeatedly called federal efforts to curtail state AI regulation “federal government overreach” and “a subsidy to Big Tech.” DeSantis recently told a Florida AI roundtable that he was confident his state’s AI laws would withstand federal challenge, saying, “But irrespective, clearly we have a right to do this.”
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, once a Trump ally, has also broken ranks over the issue. She admitted to voting for an initial version of the “Big Beautiful Bill” without realizing it contained a provision blocking state AI regulation for 10 years. “I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there,” Greene wrote on X. She later reiterated, “States must retain the right to regulate and make laws on AI and anything else for the benefit of their state. Federalism must be preserved.”
Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri has been another vocal critic. “I would think that, just as a matter of federalism, we’d want states to be able to try out different regimes that they think will work for their state,” Hawley told Business Insider. “And I think in general, on AI, I do think we need some sensible oversight that will protect people’s liberties.”
Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who led 17 GOP governors in opposing a 10-year AI moratorium, wrote in the Washington Post, “That Congress proposes to strip away the right of any state to regulate AI is the antithesis of what our founders envisioned when they established our federal system.” Utah Governor Spencer Cox, another signatory, has called for a balanced approach that “safeguard[s] our kids, preserve[s] our values, and strengthen[s] American competitiveness.”
Despite these divisions, the most sweeping preemption provisions were ultimately removed from both the National Defense Authorization Act—passed on December 18, 2025—and the “Big Beautiful Bill.” Yet, the executive order’s threat of litigation and funding cuts remains, leaving states like Montana in a legal and political limbo.
As the federal government and states jockey for control over AI’s future, Montana’s lawmakers remain adamant that local voices matter. “If the federal government hasn’t come out with anything that matches the stuff that we’re trying to deal with in the states, then they should not be preempting that,” Cohenour said. “That is not what the people of Montana want.”
The coming months will likely see court battles, policy rewrites, and no shortage of debate as the U.S. charts its course in the AI age—one that pits innovation against oversight, and national ambition against the enduring American value of local control.
