Trump administration releases AI legislative blueprint.

10-minute read | 2,000 words

White House publishes new AI policy blueprint.

The Trump administration has published its artificial intelligence (AI) policy framework for Congress to review and potentially codify into law.

Judge hears challenge to Hewlett Packard Enterprise acquisition.

A federal case has begun to hear an antitrust challenge to the Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) acquisition of Juniper Networks.

Trump administration releases AI legislative blueprint.

THE NEWS

On Friday, the White House released its policy blueprint for federal AI legislation. The National Policy Framework combines a series of political and regulatory AI goals for the administration, along with requesting Congress to overrule state AI laws, which it considers to be imposing “undue burdens.” More specifically, the framework explicitly requests that Congress use preemption to prevent any state law that attempts to regulate how models are developed or those that penalize AI companies for how others utilize their models. 

While the Trump administration has been pushing for federal AI preemption, it is unclear if Congress will respond accordingly. Republican Senator John Thune commented on the matter, stating:

“We’ve got to figure out how to do this in a way that addresses the concerns that a lot of our members have about not trampling states’ rights in the process. We’re just trying to figure out how to thread that needle.”

The White House has argued that preemption is critical to reduce legislative burdens on AI developers. When signing a related Executive Order, President Trump stated:

“We have the big investment coming, but if they had to get 50 different approvals from 50 different states, you can forget it because it’s impossible to do.”

For context, that Executive Order was signed in December 2025 and looked to use executive power to reduce the influence of state laws. While the order could not implement preemption itself, it did continue to raise calls for it. Additionally, the order requested federal agencies to review existing state AI laws to find ones that conflicted with the administration’s viewpoints and to sue respective states. Lastly, the order also instructed agencies to withhold federal funding for states that had AI laws that were considered overly burdensome.

THE KNOWLEDGE

The Trump administration’s framework has seven core components. These include:

1. Protecting children and empowering parents.
2. Safeguarding and strengthening American communities.
3. Respecting intellectual property (IP) rights and supporting creators.
4. Preventing censorship and protecting free speech.
5. Enabling innovation and ensuring American AI dominance.
6. Educating Americans and developing an AI-ready workforce.
7. Establishing a federal policy framework, preempting cumbersome state AI laws.

Regarding section one, the White House is proposing AI platforms take stronger measures to protect children and empower parents. This effort includes expanding off of the Take It Down Act alongside mandating tools that allow parents to manage their children’s privacy settings, screen time, and account controls. Additionally, the administration called on Congress to affirm that existing child privacy protections also apply to AI systems regarding data collection efforts and targeted advertising.

For section two, the Trump administration is looking to advocate for faster domestic AI development by expanding infrastructure buildout and energy dominance. A key aspect of this initiative pushes for Congress to ensure that residential ratepayers do not experience higher costs due to new AI data center costs. Additionally, the administration also requests that Congress streamline the federal permitting process for AI infrastructure construction and operations to stand up new energy sources and improve grid reliability.

In section three, officials call for stronger protections for IP rights from AI-generated outputs. While the administration notes it does not think training AI on copyrighted material violates laws, it emphasizes that there are differing opinions on the matter, which the court needs to resolve. Since the administration believes this is best handled by the courts, the administration does not believe Congress should take action to resolve the matter. Instead, the administration believes that Congress should enable groups to collectively negotiate compensation from AI providers.

For section four, the White House emphasizes that the federal government needs to ensure that AI systems are not being used to silence or censor political expression or dissent. To better protect free speech, the administration called on Congress to prevent technology providers from banning, compelling, or altering content based on ideologies.

Concerning section five, the framework firmly stated that the US must lead the world in AI and to do so needs to remove barriers to innovation and deployment. By establishing regulatory sandboxes and making federal datasets accessible, the administration wants to spur greater ingenuity and model training capabilities.

Relating to section six, President Trump emphasizes the importance of integrating AI systems into business lines to expand sector opportunities and create new AI-powered jobs. Additionally, this section calls for integrating AI skills into youth development and skills training programs to aid in developing an AI-powered workforce.

Lastly, for section seven, the Trump administration calls for the creation of a federal AI policy framework. This section explicitly calls for Congress to preempt existing state AI laws, arguing that they create an overly burdensome impact on AI developers and instead want one national standard. For this framework, President Trump requests that Congress not allow states to regulate AI development, penalize AI developers for unlawful conduct, or burden AI usage.

THE IMPACT

For months, the Trump administration has been working towards a policy framework that closely aligns with this blueprint, especially related to federal preemption of state AI laws, accelerating power grid and data center buildouts, and expanding AI adoption across the economy.

At its core, this proposal likely sets the stage for a major federal battle of AI governance. If Congress does preempt state laws, it would nullify numerous state-level AI laws, many of which have emerged to address issues like algorithmic bias, consumer protections, model development, risk management, and transparency. A sudden rollback of these protections could dramatically impact how AI developers operate and the risks consumers and businesses are exposed to. 

Further, while this approach could accelerate AI development in the short term, particularly by easing compliance burdens and expanding data centers, it could introduce greater risks, placing responsibilities on users, courts, and downstream actors to address misuse and unintended consequences.

With this blueprint, Lawmakers will now need to navigate pressures to support the administration’s agenda, ensure that their constituents are protected, and that state rights are respected. The next phase of AI governance will likely be shaped less by executive actions and instead by legislative fights.

Democratic state attorneys general challenge the acquisition of Juniper Networks.

THE NEWS

On Monday, a federal antitrust case began in California regarding HPE’s 2025 acquisition of Juniper Networks for $14 billion. In the suit, the attorneys general argue that the acquisition should not have been permitted and the Department of Justice’s (DoJ) settlement was ineffective and corrupt.

Twelve states and the District of Columbia have joined together to request that this settlement be blocked.

Arthur Biller, a lawyer representing the coalition of attorneys general stated:

“The antitrust division was totally cut out of this. It’s patronage, quite frankly.”

That statement is tied to a claim the states are arguing that HPE’s settlement was negotiated without Gail Slater’s oversight, which subsequently failed to resolve competitive concerns. For context, Gail Slater is the DoJ’s top antitrust official.

The DoJ pushed back on the lawsuit last year, stating:

“Speculative allegations about the Department of Justice’s internal decision-making process” were outside the court’s scope of authority.

HPE has responded to the lawsuit, stating:

“The evidence shows that HPE and the DoJ engaged in a robust, arms-length negotiation process that resulted in an appropriate compromise with meaningful remedies.”

THE KNOWLEDGE

Notably, the DoJ also filed a lawsuit to block this acquisition in the beginning in 2025. In this suit, the DoJ argued that the acquisition would eliminate competition, raise prices, and reduce innovation opportunities. Then acting Assistant Attorney General Omeed Assefi of the Antitrust Division commented on the deal, stating:

“HPE and Juniper are successful companies. But rather than continue to compete as rivals in the WLAN marketplace, they seek to consolidate – increasing concentration in an already concentrated market. This proposed merger would significantly reduce competition and weaken innovation, resulting in large segments of the American economy paying more for less.”

More specifically, the DoJ’s original complaint alleged that Juniper has been a positive disruptive force in the marketplace encouraging new innovative tools, which have forced larger marketplace participants, like HPE, to introduce discounts on its offerings. Given this, HPE elected to remove Juniper by acquiring them, as the company’s executives allegedly saw the company as a threat. 

However, despite this lawsuit, the DoJ unexpectedly reversed its decision and dropped the case after agreeing to a settlement in June 2025. With the settlement, HPE would be required to divest its global Instant On campus and branch WLAN business to a DoJ-approved buyer. Lastly, the settlement mandates that an auction must be held to license Juniper’s AI Ops for Mist source code giving buyers a perpetual and non-exclusive license alongside transitional support.

THE IMPACT

This case is notable given both the size of the deal and its implications for antitrust enforcement within the US. While the DoJ allowed the acquisition to move forward, this state lawsuit reopens the question regarding the role of federal regulators’ abilities to resolve marketplace competition cases.

If the courts are willing to modify, or even undo, the approved settlement, it would mark a significant shift in antitrust enforcement. Whereas previously the DoJ provided a degree of legal certainty, this challenge undermines this understanding and signals that state attorney generals may increasingly act as an additional layer of review.

At the same time, the case highlights a growing tension between federal and state antitrust priorities. This lawsuit suggests that states are not only willing to challenge corporate consolidation, but also the federal government’s judgement and process in approving it.

Taken together, the lawsuit is not just about one acquisition. Rather, it is a test of whether state or federal regulators have more influence over antitrust policies.

This Week’s Caveat Podcast: Round three: The fight over AI preemption.

Ben Yelin and N2K’s lead analyst, Ethan Cook, sit down to discuss two key stories. The first involves the Trump administration’s new proposed AI framework as the two break down its various sections and proposals. The next story involves the Federal Communication Commission’s ban of any new foreign made routers and the implications that this could have on the router marketplace.

Listen to the episode now.

OTHER NOTEWORTHY STORIES

US charges 3 people tied to chip smuggling.

What: The DoJ has charged three people connected to chip smuggling operations.

Why: Last week, the DoJ charged these individuals due to their alleged connections to Chinese chip smuggling operations. These three people were connected to the AI server maker, Super Micro Computer Inc. Notably, the company itself has not been named as a defendant in the case, and it has reportedly cooperated with investigators.

In these allegations, the three men would allegedly send US-made servers through Southeast Asian nations and then proceed to swap these servers into unmarked boxes for shipment to China.

MAR 19, 2026 | Source: Reuters

Nations disrupt a major botnet.

What: Germany, the US, and Canada have disrupted a botnet that had infected millions of devices.

Why: Last week, law enforcement agencies from the three nations conducted a joint operation to take down infrastructure used by major botnets that had infected over three million devices. The major botnet networks disrupted included AIsuru, KimWolf, JackSkid, and Mossad, all of which were used to launch distributed denial-of-service attacks. In a statement, German police stated:

“Searches were conducted…in Germany and Canada, and extensive evidence was seized. In addition to numerous data storage devices, cryptocurrencies worth tens of thousands of dollars were also confiscated.”

MAR 19, 2026 | Source: WIRED