Select Page

Right vs Right – Trump’s White House Killing Florida’s AI Regulation Bill

Right vs Right – Trump’s White House Killing Florida’s AI Regulation Bill

Within the political right, the issue of regulating artificial intelligence (AI) for public use has brought the Trump administration to act against a proposed law in the deep red state of Florida. Those concerned wonder why the White House is trying to kill the proposed legislation that is backed by Governor Ron DeSantis.

Known as the DeSantis’ AI Bill of Rights, the proposed law is said to be a top priority for the Republican Governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, and was introduced earlier this year. The bill puts greater regulatory measures including parental controls on the use of AI by minors, such as the right of parents to opt out of their kids using AI tools at the school. While this seems a good move toward protecting minors and other users from the potential abuses of AI, the bill is bumping into hesitation in the state legislature. And the reason sits in the D.C.

The Daily Signal (February 23) featured the topic by citing sources from the White House and others directly familiar with the issue, reporting that Trump’s White House is pushing Florida state legislators to kill DeSantis’ AI Bill of Rights. Seemingly, the White House wants to be exclusively able to determine the AI regulation policy and barring individual states from having a say in the matter.

The Trump administration believes that its federal AI regulations offer ample protection to users of the technology as specified in Trump’s executive order “Ensuring A National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence” issued on December 11, 2025. But the people in Florida who lobbied to get the AI Bill of Rights passed by the legislature disagree and deem the bill necessary for protecting children. Keith Flaugh, CEO of Florida Citizens Alliance, was cited by The Daily Signal commenting:

“AI, without regulation, will destroy the family unit when every child, either through the education system or just through getting a chat, has their own personal, godlike authority figure in their life, starting at age five or less.”

And while the AI legislation has progressed in the State Senate, it has stalled in the House as Speaker Daniel Perez of the Florida State House along with his staffers seems to agree with the White House. His comment on the issue leaves no doubt:

“I’ve been very clear that I think AI is an issue that should be dealt with by the federal government. I have massive concerns with the state’s ability to deal with anything in tech.”

It’s not just Florida though; the White House has also openly opposed a similar AI protection bill in Utah in a letter sent to their state legislators. White House correspondent Elizabeth Mitchell of The Daily Signal went on Steve Bannon’s show War Room to comment on the state vs federal conflict over AI legislation. She mentioned that the federal policy has set the bar pretty low where child safety is concerned and the White House doesn’t want states to move the bar up.

The same conflict is also brewing in Louisiana where state lawmakers have proposed over a dozen bills to put guardrails around AI use in several key areas of life. The concerns range from “eepfake pornography, child exploitation, deceptive campaign materials, automated hiring decisions, AI disclosures to consumers and the growing use of chatbots in sensitive settings,” as reported by Just the News (February 28).

LifeSite News (February 24) cited Michael Toscano of the Institute for Family Studies opining that the Trump administration’s opposition to any state’s regulation or legislation on AI owes to the fact that that the White House doesn’t want to make tech companies unhappy. It was also confirmed to The Daily Signal by a White House official that state regulation of AI use would hurt the tech companies that own the AI technology.

About The Author

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Larry, what you say is true-highly doubtful that Paxton would win a general election. However , it has been shown…