Trump's AI Strategy: Federal Priority Over States and Parental Responsibility for Children's Safety

Trump's administration has published a framework document on artificial intelligence regulation that sets the tone for American AI policy in the coming years. Three main theses: federal rules prevail over state laws, priority is given to innovation, and responsibility for children's online safety is shifted from platforms to parents. The key principle is federal priority.

The USA is a federation where states traditionally can enact their own laws in the technology sphere. In recent years, several states—California, Texas, Illinois—have prepared their own AI laws with requirements significantly stricter than at the federal level. Trump's strategy directly states: federal regulation has supremacy.

This means that stricter state regulations are effectively nullified—business receives a unified, more predictable, and softer regulatory regime. The second principle is a bet on competitiveness. The document emphasizes that the USA must lead in the AI race, primarily against China.

Any regulation that slows innovation is viewed as a threat to national interests. Formally, this means: if a choice must be made between reducing risks and accelerating development, the choice is made in favor of development. The logic is that losing the AI race is more dangerous than weak regulatory oversight.

The third principle concerns children—and here everything is most ambiguous. The previous approach assumed that platforms themselves bear legal responsibility for restricting minors' access to potentially harmful content. The new strategy shifts the emphasis: primary responsibility is placed on parents.

Platforms must still provide parental control tools, but their non-use becomes a family problem, not a company problem. This is a significant change that reduces pressure on Big Tech regarding AI content moderation for children. For technology companies, the strategy is unambiguously good news.

Regulatory burden is reduced, legal uncertainty is eliminated: instead of a patchwork of 50 different sets of rules—one federal standard. OpenAI, Google, Meta, and thousands of startups gain the ability to build products under more liberal conditions than in the EU, where the AI Act provides for fines up to 6% of revenue. For child rights advocates, the document is a troubling signal.

They point out: shifting responsibility to parents looks attractive in theory, but in practice most families lack both the technical knowledge and time for comprehensive oversight of AI tools their children use. Research shows: teenagers often gain access to unwanted content through AI chatbots and image generators—especially when platforms don't implement strict restrictions by default. This framework is part of a broader shift in AI policy.

In early 2025, Trump rescinded Biden's executive order on AI safety, calling it an obstacle to innovation. He then formed a consultative AI council with participation from leading technology companies and announced $500 billion in investments in AI infrastructure as part of the Stargate project. The current document is not a law—it is a political declaration.

Actual regulation requires passage through Congress, and states will likely challenge federal priority in courts—especially California, traditionally going its own way. Trump's American AI strategy is a deliberate choice in favor of speed and competition over caution. The EU and USA continue to diverge: the European AI Act strictly regulates high-risk systems, while the American approach bets on market self-regulation.

Whether this turns out to be the right decision will be shown in the coming years.