On March 20, 2026, the White House released a short but consequential set of legislative recommendations as part of its National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence. The document is not itself law, and it does not create binding obligations. It does, however, offer a clear signal of the administration’s federal AI priorities and the types of measures it may urge Congress to pursue. Across seven sections, the recommendations emphasize child safety, infrastructure and economic growth, intellectual property and digital replicas, free speech, workforce development, and a federal framework designed to limit burdensome state-by-state AI regulation.
For companies developing, deploying or using AI tools, one immediate takeaway is that the administration is framing AI policy as both a competitiveness issue and a governance issue.
On child safety, the paper calls for Congress to require AI services likely to be accessed by minors to adopt privacy-protective age-assurance measures, give parents stronger account and content controls, and implement features to reduce risks of sexual exploitation and self-harm. It also states that existing child privacy protections should apply to AI systems, including limits on data collection for model training and targeted advertising. At the same time, the document urges Congress to avoid ambiguous content standards and open-ended liability that could fuel excessive litigation.
The recommendations also tie AI development to infrastructure, energy and community impact. Congress is urged to protect residential ratepayers from increased electricity costs tied to new AI data centers, while also streamlining federal permitting so developers can build or procure on-site and behind-the-meter power more efficiently. The paper further calls for stronger law enforcement tools against AI-enabled impersonation fraud, greater technical capacity within the national security enterprise to assess frontier model risks, and grants, tax incentives and technical assistance to support small-business adoption of AI. For businesses, that combination suggests a policy environment that may favor AI buildout and deployment, but with a continued focus on fraud, energy and national security concerns.
On intellectual property, the White House takes a notable position: it states that, in the administration’s view, training AI models on copyrighted material does not violate copyright law, while acknowledging that contrary arguments exist and should be resolved by the courts. The paper therefore recommends that Congress avoid legislating in ways that would affect judicial resolution of the fair-use question. At the same time, it suggests Congress consider licensing or collective rights frameworks that would allow rights holders to negotiate compensation with AI providers without triggering antitrust liability, while stopping short of deciding when licensing is legally required. The document also supports a federal framework protecting individuals against unauthorized commercial use or distribution of AI-generated digital replicas of their voice, likeness or other identifiable attributes, subject to clear First Amendment exceptions.
The recommendations are equally notable for what they say about speech and regulation. The White House urges Congress to prohibit the federal government from coercing technology companies, including AI providers, to remove or alter content based on partisan or ideological agendas, and to provide Americans with a means of redress for agency efforts to censor expression on AI platforms.
On innovation, the paper calls for regulatory sandboxes, broader access to federal datasets in AI-ready formats, and expressly argues against creating a new federal AI rulemaking body. Instead, it favors sector-specific oversight through existing agencies with relevant subject-matter expertise, combined with industry-led standards.
Finally, the document strongly endorses federal preemption of state AI laws that impose undue burdens, while preserving state authority to enforce generally applicable laws, regulate zoning and infrastructure siting, and govern a state’s own use of AI. That may prove to be one of the most contested aspects of any future legislation. For now, companies should read these recommendations as an early roadmap: Washington appears to be moving toward a framework that is less centered on broad horizontal AI regulation and more focused on child safety, fraud prevention, speech concerns, infrastructure, workforce readiness, and a nationally uniform baseline for AI development and deployment. That is not a final legislative package, but it is a meaningful statement of direction.
For more information, please contact us or your regular Parker Poe contact. Click here to subscribe to our latest alerts and insights.