Conceptual Redline of Draft AI Executive Order and Final Order

Below is Section 1 and Section 8 presented that way, plus a short list of draft-only concepts that were dropped. (Underlined words in the draft executive order; boldfaced in the final order.)

Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1. Purpose.

The White HouseExecutive Orders

Section 1 – Purpose (visual redline)

Final text, with changes marked

Section 1. Purpose. United States leadership in Artificial Intelligence (AI) will promote American United States national and economic security and dominance across many domains. Pursuant to Executive Order 14179 of January 23, 2025 (Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence), I revoked my predecessor’s attempt to paralyze this industry and directed my Administration to remove barriers to United States AI leadership. My Administration has already done tremendous work to advance that objective, including by updating existing Federal regulatory frameworks to remove barriers to and encourage adoption of AI applications across sectors. These efforts have already delivered tremendous benefits to the American people and led to trillions of dollars of investments across the country. But we remain in the earliest days of this technological revolution and are in a race with adversaries for supremacy within it.

To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation. But excessive State regulation thwarts this imperative. First, State-by-State regulation by definition creates a patchwork of 50 different regulatory regimes that makes compliance more challenging, particularly for start-ups. Second, State laws are increasingly responsible for requiring entities to embed ideological bias within models. For example, a new Colorado law banning “algorithmic discrimination” may even force AI models to produce false results in order to avoid a “differential treatment or impact” on protected groups. Third, State laws sometimes impermissibly regulate beyond State borders, impinging on interstate commerce.

My Administration must act with the Congress to ensure that there is a minimally burdensome national standard — not 50 discordant State ones. The resulting framework must forbid State laws that conflict with the policy set forth in this order. That framework should also ensure that children are protected, censorship is prevented, copyrights are respected, and communities are safeguarded. 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.

Draft-only material that was removed from Section 1

In the draft EO, Section 1 also included extra paragraphs that do not appear in the final version, most notably:

• A California SB 53 paragraph, describing it as a

“complex and burdensome disclosure and reporting law premised on the purely speculative suspicion that AI might ‘pose catastrophic risk’,”
and tying it to “significant catastrophic risk” rhetoric.
⟶ All explicit SB 53 / “catastrophic risk” language is gone in the signed order.

• A more aggressive description of the state-law push as a

“fear-based regulatory capture strategy,” and complaints that some state laws require developers to “embed DEI” in models and “produce false results” for enumerated groups.
⟶ The idea survives (Colorado example + “ideological bias”), but the explicit “DEI” and “regulatory capture” phrasing is removed in the final.

• A numeric sentence about “over 1,000 AI bills” being introduced in states, creating a “lowest common denominator” national standard.
  ⟶ The final keeps the “patchwork of 50” concept, but drops the 1,000-bills / lowest-common-denominator line.

Think of the draft Section 1 as final text +

• a struck SB 53 paragraph,
• a struck “fear-based regulatory capture / DEI” paragraph, and
• a struck “over 1,000 bills / lowest common denominator” sentence.

The final adds the positive checklist (“children… censorship… copyrights… communities”) and cleans up “American” → “United States”.

Section 8 – Legislation (visual redline)

Final text, with changes marked

Sec. 8. Legislation. (a) The Special Advisor for AI and Crypto and the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology shall jointly prepare a legislative recommendation establishing a uniform Federal policy framework for AI that preempts State AI laws that conflict with the policy set forth in this order.

(b) The legislative recommendation called for in subsection (a) of this section shall not propose preempting otherwise lawful State AI laws relating to:

(i) child safety protections;

(ii) AI compute and data center infrastructure, other than generally applicable permitting reforms;

(iii) State government procurement and use of AI; and

(iv) other topics as shall be determined.

What changed vs. the draft

From comparing the leaked draft language to the final:

• Who drafts the bill.
  • Draft: paired the Special Advisor for AI & Crypto with a more “legislative shop” actor (e.g., Legislative Affairs).
  • Final: explicitly names “the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology” as the co-lead.
    ⟶ In redline terms:
    Special Advisor for AI and Crypto ~~[other White House legislative official]~~ **and the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology**
• Permitting carve-out.
  • Draft carve-out (ii) protected state laws on “AI compute and data center infrastructure” more broadly.
  • Final narrows that by adding:
    AI compute and data center infrastructure, **other than generally applicable permitting reforms;**
    ⟶ Graphically, that “other than generally applicable permitting reforms” phrase is new in the signed order and weakens the carve-out.
• Open-ended carve-out.
  • Draft’s list stopped after specific topics (child safety, infrastructure, procurement).
  • Final adds a catch-all:
    **(iv) other topics as shall be determined.**
    ⟶ This gives the White House flexibility to add more categories later without re-writing the EO.

How to think of it, visually

• Section 1
  • You’d see a whole SB 53 / catastrophic risk paragraph in red strikethrough on the left (draft) only.
  • You’d see red strike on phrases like “American national and economic security,” replaced in the right column with “United States national and economic security.”
  • You’d see green underlines/additions on the child-safety / censorship / copyright / communities clause in the final.
• Section 8
  • You’d see an insertion balloon around “and the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology” in 8(a).
  • In 8(b)(ii), you’d see a green insertion for “other than generally applicable permitting reforms”.
  • In 8(b)(iv), you’d see a fully green, added sub-paragraph: “other topics as shall be determined.”