Effective Accelerationism Has Joined the Culture War
Trump's Executive Order to Block States from Regulating Artificial Intelligence
When I checked my notifications last night, I saw that the Trump administration was finally announcing a framework to regulate artificial intelligence.
My excitement lasted all of two seconds. When I read the Executive Order, “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” I realized that what I was reading was a declaration of war on AI safety.
The fringe, cult-like movement known as effective accelerationism (or e/acc) has somehow found its way inside the White House.
Adherents to effective accelerationism seek to destroy everything that could interfere with maximizing the probability of the singularity. They want to get rid of all guardrails, throw safety to the wind, and race full-speed ahead towards a future where humans are supplanted by artificial superintelligence.
Billionaire venture capitalist Marc Andreessen is the most well-known proponent of this philosophy with his Techno-Optimist Manifesto. Other vocal supporters include Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan and Shopify CEO Tobias Lütke.
And now, they have the most significant endorsement of all: the President of the United States. Trump’s new Executive Order explicitly frames safety regulations not as necessary guardrails, but as obstructions to be removed by executive fiat.
To achieve the accelerationists’ goals, the administration is attempting to bulldoze the safeguards of federalism. The White House has placed a target on state-level safety laws (like those in Colorado and California), signaling that the only metric that matters is speed.
The logic is simple and fatal: We must build the superintelligence first to beat China—and “woke” safety laws are standing in the way.
The Anti-Woke Double Standard
But while the justification is global competitiveness, the specific targets of the order reveal a domestic political motive. David Sacks, the administration’s “AI Czar,” has made it clear that the application is purely domestic culture war.
The Executive Order directs agencies to target state laws that force AI models to “alter their truthful outputs” or that hold developers liable for “algorithmic discrimination.” Sacks dismisses those protections as “ideological meddling,” and argues that preventing bias is how we ended up with “black George Washington.” He claims that the U.S. needs a federal “One Rulebook” to stop this “patchwork” of “bad actors” (i.e., state legislatures).
There is a profound irony in framing democratically enacted anti-discrimination laws as “ideological meddling.” The administration isn’t removing ideology from AI; they are simply deciding whose ideology gets to govern it. Trump seems to have no concerns with Elon Musk creating his own AI model to reflect his personal worldview.
This crusade also creates massive collateral damage. In their zeal to stop “woke” bias, the order effectively nullifies state laws banning non-consensual deepfake pornography and election disinformation, which are often bundled into these safety bills.
They are throwing the baby, the bathwater, and the entire plumbing system out the window just to score a political point.
This Will Get Stuck in Courts for Years
However, while the philosophy of this order is terrifying, the legality of it is surprisingly weak.
Here is why this Executive Order is likely to fail in court, and why the legal battle will likely be one of the most important in human history.
1. The Supremacy Clause
The Trump administration is attempting to use an Executive Order to nullify state laws. But there is a massive constitutional hurdle here: The Supremacy Clause only applies to “valid” federal laws.
For an Executive Order to preempt state law, it must generally be rooted in a valid delegation of authority from Congress.
The administration is arguing that the Federal government can preempt states simply because AI involves “interstate commerce.” They are half-right: AI is interstate commerce. But the U.S. Constitution gives the power to regulate interstate commerce to Congress, not the President. While the Department of Justice can litigate that specific state laws burden interstate commerce, the President cannot simply declare preemption.
Furthermore, the administration isn’t replacing “bad” state laws with “good” federal law. They are aiming to create a deregulatory black hole. They are directing agencies to dismantle state protections without proposing a federal safety framework to take their place.
2. The 10th Amendment
State Attorneys General are not going to roll over. Expect them to seek immediate injunctions. They will likely argue that under the 10th Amendment, states retain police powers, including the right to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens.
When a state argues that an AI model discriminates against its residents or poses a physical danger, they are exercising a sovereign right.
3. The “Major Questions” Doctrine
For years, conservative judges have used the “Major Questions” doctrine to strike down regulations, arguing that agencies can’t make decisions of “vast economic and political significance” without clear permission from Congress.
Ironically, this conservative weapon is about to be pointed at the Trump administration. Deregulating the most transformative technology in history and nullifying the laws of 50 states is the definition of a “Major Question.”
Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Chevron deference means courts will no longer automatically defer to agency interpretations. If agencies try to claim authority over regulating AI without clear textual authorization, judges will block it.
4. The Power of the Purse
The order attempts to use leverage by threatening to withhold federal broadband funding from states that enforce their AI laws. This is likely another legal dead end.
The Executive Branch cannot retroactively add new, unrelated political conditions to money Congress has already appropriated. This tactic invites immediate challenges under the Impoundment Control Act.
This is also attempting to enforce through executive action provisions that the Senate rejected in a 99-1 vote just last July.
The administration seems willing to walk into a legal mess just to make a political point.
The Practical Result: Chaos, Not Innovation
The administration argues that regulation stifles innovation and that businesses need a “One Rulebook” solution. But by invalidating state laws without passing a federal statute, they have given us “No Rulebook,” and the courts will likely freeze everything in place.
Companies now face a reality where a federal mandate conflicts with valid state laws, creating a compliance quagmire that could last for years while litigation plays out. By creating this legal hell in the place of clear safety rules, the White House is unleashing chaos, not productivity.
The “Patchwork” is Our Parachute
In the American political system, friction is a feature, not a bug.
The administration complains about a “patchwork” of state laws creating friction. They are right. It is friction.
But when you are racing toward a cliff edge, friction is exactly what you want.
The “patchwork” of state laws is the only thing currently functioning as a parachute. When the federal government abdicates its responsibility to ensure safety, the states are supposed to step up.
But by preempting state laws with a vacuum, the Trump administration is deliberately removing the last line of defense against an unchecked intelligence explosion.
This is a race to the bottom. There are no winners in a race without safety. The “winner” just gets to be the first to be dismantled by the very superintelligence they rushed to build.