The Brief

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday to discourage state governments from regulating artificial intelligence and urge Congress to pass a law preempting such regulations.

The order is likely to hit hardest in California, which since 2016 has passed more laws to regulate artificial intelligence than any other state, according to a Stanford report from earlier this year. California is also home to the world’s leading AI companies, including Anthropic, Google, Nvidia and OpenAI.

Trump’s order would require the heads of the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice to challenge state AI laws. It also calls for the development of model AI legislation to preempt or supersede state law unless those laws address children’s safety, data center infrastructure, state government use of AI or other yet-to-be-determined areas.

For states that continue to regulate AI, the order instructs federal agencies to explore whether they can restrict grants to them, including by revoking funding known as Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment. California has a potential $1.8 billion in broadband funding at stake, much of which was committed to specific projects earlier this month and is set to deliver internet access to more than 300,000 people.

In a social media post earlier this week and remarks from the Oval Office today, Trump said the executive order was written to prevent businesses from needing to comply with laws from multiple states and that having to do so threatens America’s competitive advantage over other nations. Investors in tech startups, such as the Menlo Park venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, have urged the president to restrict state AI regulation and celebrated the president signing the order.

Laws affected by the order

Trump’s order specifically criticized a Colorado law that requires testing and disclosure of AI that makes consequential decisions about people’s lives and seeks to prevent discrimination, a standard California lawmakers may revisit next year.

Among recently-passed California laws that federal agencies may challenge are:

• A ban on AI makers blaming the technology itself for harming people when defending themselves in court.
• A prohibition on algorithms raising prices.
• A requirement that the makers of AI supply the public with tools to identify AI-generated photos, videos and audio so that they can better spot fakes. 
• A law going into effect next month that requires AI makers to disclose details about the data they use to train their models.

Members of Congress routinely call California an example of AI regulation run amok, but lawmakers from both major parties have supported regulating AI, with more than 70 laws passed by 27 states this year, according to a report by the Transparency Coalition. California again led the nation with the passage of roughly a dozen laws as Texas, Montana, Utah and Arkansas followed with the most AI bills signed into law this year.

The executive order comes on the heels of a second attempt in Congress to preempt state AI laws, which fell short last week. Republican members of Congress first attempted to ban AI regulation by state governments for 10 years this spring, an initiative derailed in part by concerns about the fate of a law that protects country music musicians in Tennesse and others that seek to block child sexual abuse material.

A look at public opinion

Polls show Californians and Americans support AI regulation. A Carnegie Endowment California poll released in October found that nearly 80% of Californians strongly or somewhat agree that, when it comes to AI, safety should be prioritized over innovation. A September Gallup poll also found that four out of five Americans want lawmakers to prioritize safety over innovation, even if that means the technology is developed more slowly.

In addition to endangering the lives of children, artificial intelligence can lead to false arrests, discriminate against job applicants and employees and deny people government benefits or health care that they’re entitled to. The technology is also power hungry, potentially driving up electricity rates and endangering clean energy goals. It also needs large amounts of fresh water for the cooling systems in data centers. Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group that sued to stop a California data center project one year ago, called the executive order an early Christmas gift to big tech.

What opponents say

Opponents of the executive order say it leaves Californians vulnerable to harm.

“Make no mistake: this order doesn’t create new protections, it removes them. That’s not governing. That’s a dereliction of duty wrapped in yet another distraction from a fracturing MAGA movement and a president who doesn’t understand the real dangers of rapidly advancing tech,” state Sen. Tom Umberg, a Democrat representing Santa Ana, said in a statement last month, when a draft of the executive order leaked to the press.

In the California Legislature enthusiasm for regulating AI shows little sign of abating. More than 100 film industry workers from groups like the Animation Guild and SAG-AFTRA showed up at a committee hearing earlier this week about protecting the work of creatives. Many spoke in support of a bill requiring AI companies to disclose what copyrighted material they use to train their models.

Animation Guild president Danny Lin said at the hearing that AI threatens nearly 40,000 jobs in California’s film, television and animation industries.

“L.A. is bleeding out before my very eyes,” Lin told state lawmakers.

In response to the executive order Lin told CalMatters calling out a Colorado law that seeks to prevent discrimination and protect working class people doesn’t give her confidence that the legislation the president is calling for will address the concerns of creatives whose work is used to train generative AI models.

“It’s pretty apparent that if we had a federal government that was actually focused on regulating this technology then the states would not feel the need to step in and create state specific legislation,” she said.

More on AI

Chop suey was once a classic Chinese American dish enjoyed on December 25 — a day when most other restaurants were closed — by Jews and other non-Christians.

These days, we tend to think of chop suey as a mishmash of stir-fried ingredients that emerged from immigrant communities in the United States. But its roots run deep, says Miranda Brown, a professor of Chinese history at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. She wrote a 2021 article called "The Hidden, Magnificent History of Chop Suey" for the website Atlas Obscura.

"It's a dish that is chopped offal," she says. "Lung, liver, tripe, kidneys."

Yes, originally chop suey was primarily made of organ meats. Brown is quick to note that offal is flavorful, rich in nutrients, and was enjoyed widely until a few generations ago, thanks, in part to industrial meat packaging processes.

"It can be chewy, it can be buttery, it can be kind of rubbery," Brown says of offal's distinctive textures. "For some people, that's really kind of exciting. Bouncy!"

The origins of the dish itself bounces back hundreds of years, she says, to imperial China.

"We have references to chop suey in Ming Dynasty texts," she notes. "The Journey to the West, which is a famous novel [from the 16th century], has a reference to chop suey. You will find it on fancy banquet menus. A version of the dish was even eaten at the Qing court."

When Chinese immigrants to the U.S. in the mid-1800s wanted to impress local officials, Brown says, they held banquets similar to ones back home, with 300-course meals that would get written up in local newspapers, in articles marveling over delicacies such as Peking duck, chop suey and bird's nest soup.

"All the bling foods that were popular when you had to [build] a good relationship with a person who had a lot of say about your life," Brown says.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 restricted immigration heavily, but Chinese restaurants still spread rapidly across the United States. By the early 1900s, chop suey had become a cultural phenomenon, a beloved ambassador dish to what had been an unfamiliar cuisine to many Americans.

Louis Armstrong recorded a song in 1926 called "Cornet Chop Suey." The 1958 musical Flower Drum Song dedicated an entire number to it. And in the movie A Christmas Story, set in the 1940s and based on the writings of Jean Shepherd, a white, Midwestern, working-class family celebrates Christmas at a Chinese restaurant called the Bo Ling Chop Suey Palace.

"It was exotic," Brown says. "It involves a little bit of adventure, and it is a name that people can pronounce."

But by the late 20th century, chop suey had fallen out of fashion. Brown says she never saw it on menus in her home city of San Francisco in the 1980s, when she was growing up. By then, Americans had deepened their appreciation of Chinese food, thanks in large part to popular cookbook author, PBS host and restaurateur Cecilia Chiang.

Before she died in 2020 at the age of 100, Chiang told NPR she thought it was hilarious how so many Americans had believed that the contemporary versions of chop suey were authentic. "They think, oh, chop suey is the only thing we have in China," she said in a 2017 NPR interview. "What a shame!"

"I think for her, it had just evolved to the point where it was no longer recognizable," says Miranda Brown, whose own mixed heritage is half white, half Chinese. "Foods evolve. I always think, if I met my great-great-grandparents, would they recognize me? Would they see elements of their faces in mine or my daughter's? And I would guess not. Something similar happened with Chinese food in America. When a dish leaves, a hundred years later it has evolved, a lot."

And perhaps it's about time, Brown says, for chop suey's next evolution: to make a comeback.
Copyright 2025 NPR

The State Department has reversed a Biden-era font change that aimed to make its paperwork more accessible to readers with disabilities.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio directed diplomats around the world to switch from Calibri to Times New Roman 14-point font in all official documents, starting on Wednesday, the State Department said in a statement to NPR. The difference between the two fonts comes down to a few finishing strokes.

"Whether for internal memoranda, papers prepared for principals, or documents shared externally, consistent formatting strengthens credibility and supports a unified Department identity," the statement said.

Times New Roman had been the State Department's official font for nearly two decades, from 2004 until 2023.

According to the Associated Press, Rubio said in a cable sent to U.S. embassies and consulates that the 2023 change, implemented by then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken, was part of misguided diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

Calibri is a sans serif font, meaning it doesn't have the decorative tops and tails at the ends of letters that serif fonts like Times New Roman do.

Times New Roman is a serif font, with decorative flourishes, while the sans-serif Calibri can be easier to read.

(

NPR

)

Those little flourishes can make the lettering harder to read, says Kristen Shinohara, who leads the Center for Accessibility and Inclusion Research at the Rochester Institute of Technology.

"This impact can be more severe for people with learning or reading disabilities like dyslexia or for people with low vision," she told NPR's Morning Edition.

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires sans-serif fonts on physical signage and display screens because of their relative legibility. At the same time, serif fonts like Times New Roman remain the norm in print newspapers, books, legal documents and more.

"Times New Roman specifically, and serif fonts generally, are more formal and professional," the State Department statement said. It did not respond to NPR's questions about reduced accessibility.

Times New Roman was designed specifically for the British newspaper The Times in the 1920s and quickly became the favored typeface for many other publications. It was also the default font of Microsoft programs like Word beginning in the 1990s until it was replaced by Calibri — which was designed with screens in mind — in 2007.

Microsoft replaced Calibri with a sans-serif font called Aptos in 2023. The company wrote in a blog post at the time that Aptos' designer, Steve Matteson, wanted the font to have "the universal appeal of the late NPR newscaster Carl Kasell and the astute tone of The Late Show host Stephen Colbert."

Small lettering, bigger patterns

Rubio's memo describes the 2023 change to Calibri as "another wasteful DEIA program" and says it did not lead to a meaningful reduction in the department's accessibility-based document remediation cases, according to copies obtained by Reuters and The Associated Press.

The Trump administration has made no secret of its disdain for its predecessor's focus on diversity, equity and inclusion.

Trump has issued numerous executive orders dismantling DEI initiatives in federal agencies, the foreign service, federal contracts and more. His administration put pressure on universities and public schools, threatening to withhold federal funding from those that have DEI programs, though a judge struck down some of those efforts in August. And growing anti-DEI backlash has also resulted in scores of private companies scaling back their own such initiatives.

During his tenure at the State Department, Rubio has already abolished offices and initiatives meant to foster inclusion and diversity, both in D.C. and abroad.

The State Department statement says the return to Times New Roman better aligns with Trump's "One Voice for America's Foreign Relations" directive from February, by underscoring its "responsibility to present a unified, professional voice in all communications."

It also fits into the Trump administration's broader fixation on aesthetics, from his gilded Oval Office redesign to his proposal of a classically-styled D.C. arch to mark the nation's 250th birthday to his August executive order mandating that new federal buildings prioritize classical and traditional architectural styles.

And well before the Trump administration started specifying federal agencies' fonts, it was restricting the words they could use.

The Health and Human Services Department removed entire webpages devoted to topics like LGBTQ health and HIV, while the Department of Energy instructed employees to avoid using terms including "climate change" and "sustainable." Just this week, court filings emerged showing the administration's six-page list of words the federal Head Start programs cannot use, including "disability," "race" and "women."
Copyright 2025 NPR

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.