迫在眉睫的憲法衝突：聯邦放鬆管制與州政府抗命在2026年的對峙

隨著日曆翻到2026年，美國的人工智慧（artificial intelligence，AI）生態正準備迎接一場具歷史意義的衝突。過去一年為監管拔河奠定了基礎，但專家警告2026年將是繩索斷裂的一年。聯邦政府積極推動放鬆管制的路線，與各州堅定執行自身嚴格人工智慧治理框架之間，出現了明顯的意識型態裂縫。

對於人工智慧產業的利害關係人——從前沿模型開發者到企業整合者——訊息很明確：「觀望」時代已結束。合規的「雙軌現實」如今成為常態，形成一個複雜環境：聯邦指導鼓勵不受限的創新，而州法則強制執行嚴格的安全與公平要求。

The Federal Offensive: Preemption and Deregulation

The Trump Administration has signaled an unequivocal preference for scaling back AI-specific regulations, viewing them as impediments to American technological supremacy. This posture has evolved from rhetorical skepticism to concrete executive action, culminating in a strategy designed to override—or "preempt"—state-level interventions.

The Executive Order and the Litigation Task Force

In the final weeks of 2025, the White House issued a pivotal Executive Order titled Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence. This directive is not merely a statement of intent but a mobilization order. It explicitly tasks the U.S. Attorney General with establishing an AI Litigation Task Force.

The mandate of this Task Force is unprecedented in the tech sector: to systematically challenge state AI laws in court. The legal theory likely rests on the argument that a patchwork of state regulations disrupts interstate commerce and that federal policy should hold supremacy. By directing the Department of Justice to target state laws deemed "unconstitutional or preempted," the Administration is firing the opening salvo in a legal battle that could reach the Supreme Court.

America's AI Action Plan

Following the Executive Order, the Administration rolled out America's AI Action Plan. This policy document instructs federal agencies to explore every available administrative avenue to curb what it terms "burdensome" state AI regulations.

While the executive branch is moving aggressively, its legislative efforts have faced hurdles. Notably, a proposed 10-year moratorium on enforcing state AI laws was stripped from the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" during congressional negotiations. The removal of this moratorium is significant; it means that, for now, Congress has not granted the sweeping preemption power the Administration desires. Consequently, the federal strategy has shifted toward litigation and agency rulemaking to achieve what could not be secured through immediate legislation.

The State Counter-Move: Innovation Through Regulation

Despite the headwinds from Washington, state legislatures have refused to yield. In fact, the perceived vacuum of binding federal safety standards has accelerated state-level rulemaking. In 2026, several landmark state laws are set to test the industry's ability to adapt.

California’s Frontier Model Mandate

California continues to lead the regulatory charge with SB 53, a first-in-the-nation statute targeting "frontier" AI systems. Unlike broader consumer protection laws, SB 53 focuses on the developers of the most powerful AI models, establishing standardized safety disclosure and governance obligations.

For Silicon Valley, this law is not optional. It requires rigorous transparency regarding training data, safety testing protocols, and potential capabilities. By focusing on the developers, California is attempting to regulate the upstream source of AI technology, a move that directly conflicts with the federal desire to leave these entities unburdened.

Colorado’s Compliance Deadline

Perhaps the most immediate concern for corporate compliance officers is Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination in AI Law, which remained intact through the 2025 legislative session. This law is scheduled to take full effect in June 2026.

The Colorado statute is prescriptive. It mandates that companies deploying high-risk AI systems—particularly those used in employment, housing, and lending—must conduct algorithmic impact assessments. These assessments are designed to detect and mitigate bias. With the June deadline looming, companies face a "hard stop"; they must have their compliance infrastructure in place, regardless of federal rhetoric suggesting such measures are unnecessary.

Texas and Biometric Enforcement

Even states traditionally associated with deregulation are engaging in the fray, albeit from different angles. Texas has pursued aggressive enforcement actions under its existing biometric privacy laws. The state’s Attorney General has targeted AI-driven facial recognition practices, demonstrating that "regulation" can also come in the form of strict application of existing statutes. This highlights a bipartisan consensus at the state level that citizens' data and biometric privacy require protection from unchecked AI surveillance.

Comparing the Federal and State Approaches

To understand the magnitude of the divergence, it is helpful to contrast the specific actions taken by federal and state actors heading into 2026.

Table 1: The 2026 Regulatory Standoff

The Compliance Quagmire: A Two-Track Reality

For the AI industry, the conflict between federal ambition and state reality creates a "compliance quagmire." Legal experts advise that companies cannot afford to bank on federal preemption to save them from state obligations.

Why Executive Orders Are Not Enough

A critical legal reality often lost in the headlines is that an Executive Order, by itself, cannot overturn validly enacted state legislation. Under the U.S. Constitution, federal laws (passed by Congress) can preempt state laws, but executive policies generally cannot, unless Congress has delegated specific authority to an agency to do so.

Since the legislative moratorium on state laws failed to pass, the Administration is relying on the courts to rule that state laws are unconstitutional obstacles to federal policy. This is a high bar to clear. Until a court issues an injunction or the Supreme Court rules definitively, state laws like California's SB 53 and Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act remain the law of the land.

The Risk of Litigation

The creation of the DOJ’s AI Litigation Task Force virtually guarantees that 2026 will be defined by high-profile court cases. We can expect the federal government to intervene in lawsuits challenging state authority, or to file suits directly. However, litigation is slow. A lawsuit filed in early 2026 might not be resolved until 2027 or 2028.

In the interim, businesses must assume state laws are valid. Ignoring the June 2026 deadline in Colorado based on the hope of a federal rescue would be a catastrophic risk management failure.

Strategic Implications for Businesses

Legal advisors are counseling a conservative approach: build for the strictest standard. If a company operates nationally, it must comply with Colorado’s anti-bias rules and California’s safety disclosures.

• Audit Readiness: Companies must prepare algorithmic impact assessments now, particularly for the Colorado deadline.
• Data Governance: California’s disclosure requirements necessitate a clear lineage of training data.
• Legal Agility: In-house counsel must monitor the "litigation tracker" to see if specific state provisions are stayed by courts, but should not pause compliance efforts in the meantime.

Looking Ahead: The Battleground of 2026

As we move deeper into 2026, the friction between these two layers of government will likely generate significant heat. The outcome of this struggle will define the American approach to AI governance for the next decade.

If the federal government succeeds in its preemption arguments, we could see a rapid dismantling of state safety nets, replaced by a more laissez-faire national standard designed to accelerate AI deployment. If the states prevail, the U.S. will effectively operate under a "California/Colorado standard," where the strictest state laws become the de facto national compliance baseline, similar to how the automotive emissions industry evolved.

For now, the only certainty is uncertainty. The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" may have failed to silence the states, but the Administration's determination remains unshaken. As the DOJ creates its task force and states prepare their defenses, the AI industry watches—and prepares for a year of navigating the most dynamic and contested legal environment in the history of technology.