Trump signed an order blocking ‘onerous’ AI laws. What will it mean for Idaho?

BOISE (Idaho Statesman) — President Donald Trump on Dec. 11 signed an executive order blocking states from passing “onerous” laws governing artificial intelligence.

The order calls for the Department of Justice to sue states with laws that violate the order, and for the Department of Commerce to withhold federal funding for rural broadband from states that do not comply.

“We remain in the earliest days of this technological revolution and are in a race with adversaries for supremacy within it,” the order said. “To win, U.S. AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation. But excessive state regulation thwarts this imperative.”

RELATED | Trump signs executive order to block state AI regulations

The order comes ahead of the Idaho legislative session, in which lawmakers have forecast that they may put forward AI-related legislation. The state already has some AI-related laws on the books.

So, what will the executive order mean for Idaho?

Rep. Jeff Ehlers, a Meridian Republican who co-chairs an interim legislative committee on AI, is optimistic that the answer is: not much.

The order calls for a “minimally burdensome” approach to AI, which Ehlers said aligns with Idaho’s stance on the technology. Idahoans are generally open to its use as long as it isn’t being used to commit crimes, he said.

The order, from Ehlers’ perspective, targeted states like Colorado, which passed a law to ban “algorithmic discrimination,” unlawful differential treatment based on protected classes like race or sex. Idaho, he said, has made few such efforts.

“I don’t see a lot of what we’re trying to do here in Idaho go against some of the aims that the White House has outlined,” Ehlers told the Idaho Statesman by phone. “I don’t see us trying to stifle innovation here around AI. I think we’re generally pretty pro-free market and open to technology.”

Idaho in 2024 passed three laws to regulate AI, targeting material that sexually exploits children and political deep-fakes. Those efforts, he said, align with carve-outs in the order to protect children.

Ehlers didn’t outline specific bills that may be proposed during the 2026 legislative session that begins Jan. 12, but said there was a general interest in transparency and accountability: ensuring that “there’s a human you can appeal to or go to or interact with — somebody that takes responsibility for the device,” he said.

Separately, Sen. Tammy Nichols, R-Middleton, wrote Thursday that she is drafting legislation to protect individuals from the unauthorized use of their image, voice and likeness in AI. She did not respond to a question about whether such legislation might face challenges from the federal government.

Is Trump’s order legal? Law prof weighs in

If states pass laws that the Trump administration deems onerous, the executive order threatens to block federal funding aimed at expanding internet access to underserved communities across the country, referred to as the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment, or BEAD, Fund.

“Essentially, they’re holding this rural broadband funding hostage,” said Jessica Gunder, a law professor at the University of Idaho who covers generative AI. “You can’t have this money if you have these kinds of statutes.”

Tying state laws to federal funding in this way is “going to have to get worked out in the courts,” she said, and will hinge on questions about whether rural broadband has any connection with AI, and whether it’s fair to connect the two issues.

Given the amount of money at stake, “I think that we’re definitely going to see a number of states likely challenge this,” Gunder said. “There’s too much money on the line.”

Ehlers acknowledged the potential for a states’ rights-related argument — that it’s unconstitutional for the federal government to limit state laws in this way. He predicted that if the federal government tried to claw back broadband funding, states would push back.

“But I’m hopeful,” he said, “that everything will be aligned, and they won’t come after Idaho.”