AI Regulation Tracker · White House · Regulation

What does EO 14365 say about AI in banking?

Published Dec 11, 2025 · Last reviewed Oct 5, 2026

Executive Order 14365, signed December 11, 2025 and published at 90 FR 58499 on December 16, 2025, sets a policy of 'a minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI' and directs a campaign against state AI laws. It ordered the Attorney General to establish an AI Litigation Task Force within 30 days (done January 9, 2026), the Commerce Secretary to publish within 90 days an evaluation of 'onerous' state AI laws, the FTC to issue a policy statement on state laws requiring altered AI outputs, and the FCC to consider a preemptive federal disclosure standard. It creates no duties for banks and does not itself preempt state law, but it names Colorado's 'algorithmic discrimination' law, which covers lending decisions, and DOJ moved to intervene against that law on April 24, 2026.

OFFICIAL TEXT: federalregister.gov ↗ · IN FORCE · WHITE HOUSE

DocumentEO 14365 — Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence
Issued byExecutive Office of the President (White House)
TypeRegulation
StatusIn force
PublishedDec 11, 2025
EffectiveDec 11, 2025
Applies toFederal agencies (Justice Department, Commerce, NTIA, FTC, FCC and the White House AI advisers) and, indirectly, States whose AI laws are challenged. It imposes no obligations on banks; it matters to banks that operate under state AI laws, such as Colorado's, that the order targets.
Official sourcefederalregister.gov ↗
Use casesCredit scoring & underwriting · Fair lending & discrimination · AI governance (general) · Data & privacy

What are the key points of EO 14365?

  • Sec. 2: policy is 'to sustain and enhance the United States' global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI'.
  • Sec. 1 criticizes State-by-State regulation and cites 'a new Colorado law banning "algorithmic discrimination"' as an example of a State law that 'may even force AI models to produce false results'.
  • Sec. 3: within 30 days the Attorney General must establish an AI Litigation Task Force 'whose sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws' inconsistent with the Sec. 2 policy, on interstate-commerce, preemption or other grounds.
  • Sec. 4: within 90 days the Commerce Secretary must publish an evaluation of existing State AI laws identifying 'onerous' laws and laws to refer to the Task Force, including laws requiring AI models to alter truthful outputs or compelling disclosures that may violate the First Amendment.
  • Sec. 5: the Commerce Secretary, through NTIA, must issue a BEAD Policy Notice making States with onerous AI laws ineligible for non-deployment funds to the maximum extent allowed by law (Sec. 5(a)), and agencies must assess conditioning discretionary grants on States not enacting conflicting AI laws (Sec. 5(b)).
  • Sec. 6: within 90 days of publication of the Sec. 4 identification, the FCC Chairman must initiate a proceeding on whether to adopt a Federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that preempts conflicting State laws.
  • Sec. 7: within 90 days the FTC Chairman must issue a policy statement on how the FTC Act's ban on unfair or deceptive practices (15 U.S.C. 45) applies to AI models and when State laws requiring altered truthful outputs are preempted.
  • Sec. 8: the AI advisers must prepare a legislative recommendation for a uniform Federal framework that preempts conflicting State AI laws but does not propose preempting otherwise lawful State laws on child safety, AI compute and data center infrastructure, State procurement and use of AI, and other topics to be determined.

What did EO 14365 change for banks?

EO 14365 moved federal AI policy from deregulation of federal rules to active opposition to state AI laws. For banks the consequence is uncertainty about state AI obligations, not relief from federal ones: the Justice Department moved against Colorado's AI Act in April 2026, the FTC proposed a policy statement in July 2026 saying such laws may be impliedly preempted, and the White House asked Congress in March 2026 to preempt burdensome state laws. Colorado has since replaced its law with SB 26-189, effective January 1, 2027.

What does EO 14365 require of banks?

Executive Order 14365, 'Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence', requires nothing of banks. It tasks federal agencies: the Attorney General to create an AI Litigation Task Force to challenge State AI laws (Sec. 3, within 30 days), the Commerce Secretary to evaluate and publish a list of onerous State AI laws (Sec. 4, within 90 days), NTIA to condition BEAD non-deployment funds (Sec. 5), the FCC to open a proceeding on a preemptive disclosure standard (Sec. 6), the FTC to issue a policy statement on State laws that require altered AI outputs (Sec. 7), and the White House advisers to prepare a preemption legislative recommendation (Sec. 8). Section 9(c) says the order creates no right or benefit enforceable against the United States or any other person. Its relevance to a bank is that it targets State AI laws, such as Colorado's law on algorithmic discrimination in consequential decisions, that can reach lending.

RuleAuthorityWhat it requiresApplies
Section 3 — AI Litigation Task Force ↗White HouseWithin 30 days the Attorney General must establish a task force whose sole responsibility is to challenge State AI laws inconsistent with the Sec. 2 policy, including on interstate commerce and preemption grounds.Established January 9, 2026
Section 4 — Evaluation of State AI laws (Commerce)White HouseWithin 90 days the Commerce Secretary must publish an evaluation of existing State AI laws that identifies onerous laws conflicting with the policy and laws to refer to the Task Force.Due March 11, 2026 (publication not confirmed)
Section 5 — Restrictions on State funding (BEAD and discretionary grants)White HouseNTIA must issue a BEAD Policy Notice making States with onerous AI laws ineligible for non-deployment funds to the maximum extent allowed by law, and agencies must assess conditioning discretionary grants on States not enacting conflicting AI laws.Due within 90 days of December 11, 2025
Section 6 — Federal reporting and disclosure standard (FCC)White HouseWithin 90 days of publication of the Sec. 4 identification, the FCC Chairman must initiate a proceeding to determine whether to adopt a Federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that preempts conflicting State laws.90 days after the Sec. 4 evaluation is published
Section 7 — Preemption of State laws mandating deceptive conduct (FTC) ↗White HouseThe FTC Chairman must issue a policy statement on how the FTC Act's unfair-and-deceptive-practices ban applies to AI models and when State laws requiring altered truthful outputs are preempted; the FTC proposed such a statement on July 1, 2026 and took comments to July 31, 2026.Proposed July 1, 2026
Section 8 — Legislation (preemption recommendation) ↗White HouseThe AI advisers must prepare a legislative recommendation for a uniform Federal framework preempting conflicting State AI laws, not proposing preemption of otherwise lawful State laws on child safety, AI compute and data center infrastructure, and State procurement and use of AI.Recommendations published March 2026
Sec. 9(c) — No private rightWhite HouseThe order creates no right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its agencies, officers or any other person.In force since December 11, 2025
Follow-on: DOJ intervention against Colorado SB 24-205 ↗White HouseThe Justice Department moved to intervene in xAI's suit against Colorado's AI law, alleging an Equal Protection violation; the statute covers lending among other consequential decisions.April 24, 2026
Colorado SB 26-189 (replacement of SB 24-205)Colorado AI ActColorado repealed and reenacted its AI Act as the Automated Decision-Making Technology Act, a transparency regime, signed May 14, 2026 and effective January 1, 2027.From January 1, 2027

EO 14365 is the instrument through which the administration moved from federal deregulation (EO 14179, the AI Action Plan) to challenging state law. The operative text is a series of directions to agencies with deadlines, and a call on Congress for a national standard. The order says an effective framework must come 'with the Congress' and does not claim to preempt state law on its own. Courts, not the order, will decide whether any state AI law is preempted or unconstitutional.

The follow-through so far is visible but partial. The Justice Department created the Task Force on January 9, 2026 and moved on April 24, 2026 to intervene in xAI's challenge to Colorado SB 24-205; the White House published legislative recommendations in March 2026 asking Congress to preempt state AI laws that impose undue burdens while preserving states' laws of general applicability on fraud and consumer protection; the FTC proposed a policy statement on July 1, 2026. We could not confirm from a primary source that Commerce has published the Sec. 4 evaluation, and we have not found a published FCC proceeding under Sec. 6, which depends on it. Colorado's SB 24-205 was replaced by SB 26-189 on May 14, 2026 before it ever took effect, so the DOJ filing predates the law that will now apply.

For a bank, the order does not relax any federal duty. Fair lending, adverse action notices, model risk management and third-party risk continue to apply under federal law. What it affects is state AI law: a multi-state lender should treat state AI statutes as live until a court or Congress says otherwise, while recognizing that Colorado's transparency regime and similar state rules are the ones under federal challenge.

WHAT THIS MEANS IN PRACTICE

  • Keep complying with state AI laws that apply to you, including Colorado SB 26-189 from January 1, 2027; the order does not suspend any state law.
  • Maintain federal fair-lending and adverse-action controls regardless of the preemption campaign; the order does not touch ECOA, FCRA or supervisory model-risk guidance.
  • Track four things: the FTC's final policy statement, any Commerce list of onerous state laws, the DOJ litigation against Colorado, and congressional action on preemption.
  • If you rely on a vendor's state-by-state compliance representations, ask how the vendor treats laws named as targets by the administration.
  • Do not treat the BEAD funding condition or the FCC proceeding as bank obligations; they bind federal agencies and States, not lenders.

Does EO 14365 apply to banks?

Not directly. It directs federal agencies and creates no obligations for private firms or banks (Sec. 9(c)). It matters to banks because it targets state AI laws, including Colorado's law covering consequential decisions such as lending, and so affects which state obligations ultimately apply.

What is the AI Litigation Task Force?

A Justice Department task force that EO 14365 Sec. 3 ordered the Attorney General to create within 30 days. Its sole responsibility is to challenge State AI laws inconsistent with the order's policy. The Attorney General's memorandum establishing it is dated January 9, 2026; it is chaired by the Attorney General or a designee, with the Associate Attorney General as Vice Chair.

Does EO 14365 preempt state AI laws like Colorado's?

No, the order does not itself preempt state law; it directs litigation, an FTC policy statement, an FCC proceeding and a legislative recommendation, and says the administration 'must act with the Congress'. The FTC's July 1, 2026 proposed policy statement says Colorado's Artificial Intelligence Act is 'impliedly preempted to the extent it conflicts with a federal regulatory scheme', but that is a proposal, not a ruling.

What has happened since EO 14365?

The Attorney General created the Task Force on January 9, 2026; the White House sent Congress legislative recommendations in March 2026; DOJ moved to intervene in xAI's suit against Colorado's law on April 24, 2026; and the FTC sought comment on a proposed policy statement on July 1, 2026 (comments closed July 31, 2026). We could not confirm on a primary source that the Commerce evaluation required by Sec. 4 has been published.

DateDocumentStatus
Jul 23, 2025America's AI Action Plan — America's AI Action PlanIn force
Jan 23, 2025EO 14179 — Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial IntelligenceIn force
Aug 11, 2026Colorado AG proposed ADMT rules — Proposed Automated Decision-Making Technology and Conversational AI Service Rules (Notice of Rulemaking Hearing)Comment period open
Jul 24, 2026Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 (Digital Omnibus on AI) — Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 as regards the simplification of the implementation of harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Digital Omnibus on AI)In force
Jun 24, 2026RBI draft Guidance on Regulatory Principles for Model Risk Management — Guidance on Regulatory Principles for Model Risk Management, 2026 (draft released for public comments)Proposed
May 19, 2026Draft Commission guidelines on high-risk classification — Draft Commission Guidelines on the classification of high-risk AI systems under Article 6 of the AI ActProposed

Follow every document these regulators publish

when one of these regulators moves, the next morning's brief says so · six sourced stories · 7 am ET · free

plus every tracker, bank and agent page update, the morning after · leave any morning