On 20 January 2025, on inauguration day, the new US President signed an executive order rescinding the Biden-era AI order EO 14110; on 23 January he signed EO 14179, Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence. In four days, two orders completed a change in the tone of federal AI policy.
What was rescinded
EO 14110, signed in October 2023, was built around “safe, secure and trustworthy” AI, imposing reporting and testing requirements on frontier models and setting rules for federal agency use of AI. The stated reason for rescission centres on one point: that it restricted private-sector AI development with burdensome requirements.
Note that rescinding an executive order does not eliminate all related legal obligations. Some federal requirements come from legislation and agency rules; what the rescission affects is the executive branch’s self-restraint and policy priorities. See our notes on the US AI Action Plan and on EO 14365 and the national AI policy framework.
What the new order does
The core action of EO 14179 is a review: agencies are required to go through existing policies and actions and identify and adjust provisions seen as hindering AI leadership. Orders of this “review” type have limited immediate effect but gradually change agencies’ enforcement and rulemaking inclinations.
For companies, what is worth tracking is what follows the review: which specific rules are amended, which reporting duties are simplified, and how agencies weigh safety against innovation in enforcement. See our notes on the US AI model review executive order and on the California SB 53 frontier AI transparency act.
Federal and state layers
The shift applies only at the federal level. State legislation continues to advance, producing a layered structure in which the federal government loosens and states tighten. For AI companies operating in the United States, compliance strategy cannot watch only federal signals; state legislative and enforcement activity also has to be tracked.
This layering is where overseas companies most often misjudge the US market: taking federal leniency as the overall environment while missing stricter transparency and safety requirements at state level.
This article is based on the texts of EO 14148 and EO 14179 published in the US Federal Register and public information and is for reference only; it does not constitute legal advice.