The Brief

The Trump administration is seeking to challenge state laws regulating the artificial intelligence industry, according to an executive order the president signed Thursday.

The order directs the Justice Department to set up an "AI Litigation Task Force" to sue states over their AI-related laws and also directs the the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission to work with the DOJ to follow the White House's AI action plan to circumvent "onerous" state and local regulations.

The order also directs Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to study whether the department can withhold federal rural broadband funding from states with unfavorable AI laws.

"We have to be unified," said President Donald Trump. "China is unified because they have one vote, that's President Xi. He says do it, and that's the end of that."

Trump's AI advisor, venture capitalist David Sacks, said the administration will not push back on all state laws.

"Kid safety, we're going to protect," Sacks said. "We're not pushing back on that, but we're going to push back on the most onerous examples of state regulations"

The executive order is almost certain to be challenged in court and tech policy researchers say the Trump administration cannot restrict state regulation in this way without Congress passing a law. The order also directs Sacks to work with Congress to help draft legislation.

Trump's executive order drew criticism from some of his supporters, including organizations that are part of a bipartisan effort to pass laws protecting children from AI harms.

"This is a huge lost opportunity by the Trump administration to lead the Republican Party into a broadly consultative process," said Michael Toscano, director of the Family First Technology Initiative at the Institute for Family Studies, a conservative think tank. "It doesn't make sense for a populist movement to cut out the people on the most critical issue of our day. But nonetheless, that is what they are vigorously trying to do."

"Even if everything is overturned in the executive order, the chilling effect on states' willingness to protect their residents is going to be huge because they're all now going to fear getting attacked directly by the Trump administration," said Adam Billen, vice president of Encode, a nonprofit focused on child safety and threats posed by AI. "That is the point of all of this — it is to create massive legal uncertainty and gray areas and give the companies the chance to do whatever they want."

Sacks can recommend some state laws, such as around child safety, to not be challenged if Congress does come up with a national policy for AI.

While Congress has stalled on passing AI regulation, dozens of states have passed laws related to AI, which include banning creating nonconsensual nude images using AI technology, mandating government agencies and businesses to disclose AI usage, requiring checks for algorithmic discrimination and protecting whistleblowers.

The Trump administration has pushed for less regulation of the AI industry, citing competitive pressure with China. But Trump has also recently allowed chipmaker Nvidia to sell its second-most advanced AI chips to China. Depending on the quantity, said Michael Sobolik, a senior fellow at Hudson Institute who studies U.S.-China competition, the export could end up "diluting what is our most significant advantage in the AI race."

Trump and some of his allies have attempted multiple times this year to halt state-level AI regulation. Earlier this month, GOP lawmakers tried and failed to insert AI preemption into the annual defense spending bill. An earlier version of the executive order signed Thursday leaked last month, sparked a round of opposition from across the political spectrum. In July, the Senate dropped an AI moratorium from the reconciliation bill it was debating.

While Democrats broadly support more AI regulation, the issue has divided Republicans. A faction of the party, including the president, welcome the support of tech billionaires, though others continue to view them with distrust.

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, an industry ally, introduced the failed AI moratorium during the reconciliation bill debate and stood next to Trump at a signing ceremony for the order on Thursday. After the effort to slip a similar measure in the defense spending bill failed last week, Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri posted on X, "This is a terrible provision and should remain OUT."

Many Republican governors are also opposed to the move. Earlier in the day, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox posted on X that he preferred an alternative executive order that did not include barring state laws. "States must help protect children and families while America accelerates its leadership in AI," he wrote.

"An executive order doesn't/can't preempt state legislative action," posted Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on X Monday in response to Trump's Truth Social post announcing the upcoming order, "Congress could, theoretically, preempt states through legislation." DeSantis has recently proposed a series of AI-related measures.

John Bergmayer, the legal director of the nonprofit advocacy group Public Knowledge, agreed. "They're trying to find a way to bypass Congress with these various theories in the executive order. Legally, I don't think they work very well."

In a post on X on Tuesday, Sacks suggested that the federal government can override state AI laws because it has the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Bergmayer disagreed, "States are, in fact, allowed to regulate interstate commerce. They do it all the time. And the Supreme Court just recently said it was fine."

Bergmayer cited a 2023 Supreme Court decision where the court supported California's power to regulate its pork industry even though the regulations affected farmers in other states.

NPR's Bobby Allyn contributed reporting.

As Los Angeles homeowners grapple with the expense of rebuilding after last year’s devastating fires, an L.A. City Councilmember is putting forward an idea that could lower some costs.

Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the Pacific Palisades, has introduced a motion to explore waiving part of the city’s portion of the local sales tax for fire victims who purchase rebuilding materials in the city.

The 1% of the local 9.75% sales tax that goes into the city’s general fund would be given back to consumers under the proposal. The waiver could apply to lumber, appliances and other rebuilding goods purchased within the city.

The motion, introduced Friday by Park and seconded by Councilmember John Lee, says: “The City should do everything within its power to alleviate the financial burden for these residents and businesses in order to facilitate their return and stabilize the Pacific Palisades community.”

Would it make much of a difference? 

Economists told LAist the proposal could help many homeowners mitigate the high cost of rebuilding, but likely wouldn’t tip the scales for under-insured, under-resourced property owners.

“It wouldn't hurt if it's very well designed and easy to use,” said Alexander Meeks, a director at the Santa Monica-based Milken Institute. “But I'm not sure if it's really going to tackle the scale of the financial challenge that survivors are facing.”

Meeks noted that the tax waiver wouldn’t lower up-front costs such as environmental testing, architectural design and permitting. And it may not help homeowners sourcing raw materials from outside the city.

Zhiyun Li, a UCLA Anderson School of Management economist, said the waiver could help some homeowners justify the additional cost of rebuilding more fire-safe structures.

“Homeowners must typically pay out of pocket to upgrade to IBHS+ standards, which are more stringent,” Li said. “The tax waiver could encourage upgrading to IBHS+ standards or investing more in mitigation, thereby reducing future risk and improving the likelihood of maintaining insurance coverage.”

What’s next for the proposal? 

The proposed tax relief would not be available to properties that have been sold since the fires started in January 2025.

The motion has been sent to the City Council’s budget and fire recovery committees. If approved by the full council, it would require the city administrative officer, the Office of Finance and the city attorney to report back to the council within 60 days on options for crafting a tax relief plan.

The motion calls for the report to consider factors such as how to minimize the burden of administering the tax relief, what documentation homeowners would have to submit and what it would cost the city to oversee the program.

Senate and House Republican leadership have resurrected a stalled plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security after a record 47-day funding lapse.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said in a joint statement on Wednesday that the House will take up a measure passed by the Senate last week to fund most of DHS except Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol through the end of September.

Republicans would then attempt to fund ICE and Border Patrol for three years using a party-line budget reconciliation bill that would not require support from Democrats.

"In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited," Thune and Johnson wrote.

The agreement comes nearly a week after House Republicans dismissed an identical plan, refusing to take up the Senate-passed measure and instead passing a 60-day short term funding bill for all of DHS that had little chance of overcoming Democratic opposition in the Senate.

Johnson called the agreement a "joke" and President Donald Trump declined to publicly endorse the deal. Trump had previously resisted any package that did not include his push to overhaul federal elections known as the Save America Act.

"I think any deal they make, I'm pretty much not happy with it," Trump told reporters last week.

Democrats welcomed the agreement as in line with their pledge not to give ICE any more money without reforms after immigration enforcement agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. But the deal does not include any of the policy demands Democrats are pressing for, such as a ban on masks for immigration enforcement officers and requiring warrants issued by a judge, not just the agency, to enter homes.

"For days, Republican divisions derailed a bipartisan agreement, making American families pay the price for their dysfunction," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote in a statement Wednesday. "Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered."

Trump seemed to bless the revived plan earlier Wednesday, writing on social media that he wants a party-line bill to fund immigration enforcement on his desk by June 1.

"We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won't be able to stop us," Trump wrote.

Despite the shutdown, ICE has been minimally impacted because Republican lawmakers approved $75 billion for ICE through another party-line budget reconciliation bill last year.

Congress is on a two-week recess, but the Senate and House could move to fund all of DHS except ICE and CBP as early as Thursday using a procedure known as unanimous consent that allows the chambers to circumvent formal voting as long as no member objects.

Even during a recess when most members are not in Washington, this could be unpredictable, especially in the House, where many hard-line conservatives oppose a deal that does not fully fund DHS.

"Let's make this simple: caving to Democrats and not paying CBP and ICE is agreeing to defund Law Enforcement and leaving our borders wide open again," Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., a member of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, wrote on X. "If that's the vote, I'm a NO."

If a member does object, that could require waiting for another vote when all members are back from recess.

Claudia Grisales contributed reporting.
Copyright 2026 NPR

California clocked its second-worst snowpack on record Wednesday, a potentially troubling signal ahead for fire season.

It’s an alarming end to a winter that saw abnormally dry conditions briefly wiped from California’s drought map in January, for the first time in a quarter-century.

Though precipitation to date has been near average, much of it fell as rain rather than snow. Then March’s record-breaking heat melted most of the snow that remains. The state’s major reservoirs are nevertheless brimming above historic averages and are flirting with capacity, and a smattering of snow, rain and thunderstorms are dousing last month’s heat wave.

But experts now warn that California’s case of the missing snowpack could herald an early fire season in the mountains.

On Wednesday, state engineers conducting the symbolic April 1 snowpack measurement at Phillips Station south of Lake Tahoe found no measurable snow in patches of white dotting the grassy field.

“I want to welcome you call to probably one of the quickest snow surveys we’ve had — maybe one where people could actually use an umbrella,” joked Karla Nemeth, director of the California Department of Water Resources. “We’re getting a lot of questions about are we heading into a hydrologic drought? The answer is, I don’t know.”

State data reports that California’s snowpack is closing out the season at an alarming 18% of average statewide, and an even more abysmal 6% of average in the northern mountains that feed California’s major reservoirs.

Only the extreme drought year of 2015 beat this year’s snowpack for the worst on record, measuring in at just 5% of average on April 1st, when the snow historically is at its deepest.

“I think everyone's anticipating that it will be a long, busy fire season,” said Lenya Quinn-Davidson, director of the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Fire Network.

“Without a snowpack, and with an early spring, it just means that there’s much more time for something like that to happen.”

‘It’s pretty bizarre up here’ 

In the city of South Lake Tahoe, which survived the massive Caldor Fire in the fall of 2021 without losing any structures, fire chief Jim Drennan said his department is already ramping up prevention efforts.

“It's pretty bizarre up here right now. It really seems like June conditions more than March,” Drennan said. “People are already turning the sprinklers on for their lawns.”

Without more precipitation, an early spring may complicate prescribed burning efforts. But Drennan said fire agencies in the Tahoe basin can start mechanically clearing fuels from forest areas earlier than usual.

“That means we can get more work done,” he said.

It also means homeowners need to start hardening their homes now, said Martin Goldberg, battalion chief and fuels management officer for the Lake Valley Fire Protection District, which protects unincorporated communities in the Lake Tahoe Basin’s south shore.

Goldberg urges residents to scour their yards for burnable materials, create defensible space and reach out to local fire departments with questions. The risks are widespread — from firewood, wooden fences, gas cans, plants, pine needles — even lawn furniture stacked against a house.

“In years past, I wouldn't even think of raking and clearing until May,” Goldberg said. “But my yard's completely cleared of snowpack, and it has been for a couple weeks now.”

‘A haystack fire’

Battalion chief David Acuña, a spokesperson for Cal Fire, said fire season is shaped by more than just one year’s snowpack.

Climate change has been remaking California’s fire seasons into fire years. And California’s recent average to abundant water years have fueled what Acuña called “bumper crops of vegetation and brush.”

“Most of California is like a haystack. And if you’ve ever seen a haystack fire, they burn very intensely because there's layers of fuel,” Acuña said.

Like Quinn-Davidson, Acuña wasn’t ready to make specific predictions about fires to come.

But John Abatzoglou, a professor of climatology at UC Merced, said the temperatures and snowpack conditions this year offer a glimpse of California in the latter decades of this century, as fossil fuel use continues to drive global temperatures higher.

How this year’s fires will play out will depend on when, where and how wind, heat, fuel and ignitions combine. But it foreshadows the consequences of a warmer California for water and fire under climate change.

“This,” Abatzoglou said, “is yet another stress test for the future in the state.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.