Meta Description: Florida AI policy takes center stage as Governor DeSantis unveils an AI Bill of Rights, defying Trump’s federal framework. Discover what this means for tech regulation.
Here’s the deal. While Washington tiptoes around artificial intelligence like it’s a sleeping bear, Florida just walked in with a bullhorn. Governor Ron DeSantis has made it crystal clear—Florida AI policy won’t wait for federal bureaucrats to figure things out.
On December 15, 2025, DeSantis hosted a roundtable at FAU Wilkes Honors College in Jupiter, where he laid out something pretty remarkable. Despite President Trump signing an executive order just days earlier designed to create a single national AI framework and discourage state-level regulation, DeSantis essentially said: “Nice try, but we’re doing this anyway.”
“We’re not going to give up any rights from the state,” the governor declared. And honestly? That statement tells you everything about where Florida AI policy is heading.
The question burning in everyone’s mind isn’t whether AI needs regulation anymore. That ship sailed. The real question is this: who gets to write the rules? Is it Congress, which has been gridlocked on comprehensive AI legislation for years? Is it the White House, wielding executive orders like a regulatory sword? Or is it the states themselves, operating as the laboratories of democracy they’ve always claimed to be?
With Florida AI policy making headlines, the Sunshine State just raised its hand. Loudly. And the implications of Florida AI policy stretch far beyond state borders.
Let’s cut through the noise and look at what Florida AI policy under DeSantis actually entails. The governor’s proposed “Citizen Bill of Rights for Artificial Intelligence” isn’t just political theater—it’s a comprehensive framework touching nearly every aspect of how Floridians interact with AI.
The heart of Florida AI policy beats around protecting everyday people. The proposed Florida AI policy framework addresses multiple consumer concerns. Here’s what the proposal includes:
One element of Florida AI policy that caught everyone’s attention? A complete ban on state and local government agencies using DeepSeek or any other Chinese-created AI tools. This aspect of Florida AI policy shows DeSantis isn’t being subtle here. He’s drawing a line between American data security and foreign AI systems. This national security dimension of Florida AI policy resonates with both parties.
Perhaps the most emotionally charged aspect of Florida AI policy involves children and mental health. This human-centered dimension of Florida AI policy stems from real tragedy. The governor sat alongside Megan Garcia during his roundtable—a Central Florida mother whose 14-year-old son died by suicide after developing a relationship with an AI chatbot that allegedly encouraged him to “come home.”
Under Florida AI policy, the proposed regulations would:
Florida AI policy also takes aim at the insurance industry. The healthcare component of Florida AI policy addresses algorithmic decision-making directly. The proposal would ensure AI cannot serve as the sole determinant for adjusting or denying insurance claims. That’s a direct response to growing concerns about algorithmic decision-making in healthcare, and this provision of Florida AI policy has bipartisan appeal.
Understanding Florida AI policy requires understanding what it’s pushing back against. On December 11, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order with a stated goal of preventing a “patchwork of 50 different regulatory regimes.”
The order does several things:
| Executive Order Provision | What It Means |
|---|---|
| AI Litigation Task Force | DOJ authorized to sue states over AI laws |
| Federal Framework Development | Commerce Secretary tasked with identifying problematic state regulations |
| Funding Threats | States with conflicting AI laws could lose broadband deployment grants |
| Preemption Language | Calls for federal law to override state AI regulations |
David Sacks, the White House’s AI and crypto czar, stood beside Trump during the signing, framing it as necessary for American competitiveness. “We have 50 states running in 50 different directions,” Sacks argued. “It just doesn’t make sense.”
But here’s where things get interesting for Florida AI policy advocates. The executive order explicitly carves out exceptions for state AI laws regulating child safety, data center infrastructure, and state procurement of AI. And guess what Florida AI policy focuses on? Exactly those areas. The strategic alignment between Florida AI policy priorities and the executive order’s exemptions isn’t coincidental.
DeSantis isn’t just defiant—he’s strategic. His reading of the legal landscape suggests Florida AI policy will survive federal scrutiny, and here’s why he thinks so.
“An executive order can’t block the states,” DeSantis explained at his Jupiter roundtable. “You can preempt states under Article One powers through congressional legislation on certain issues, but you can’t do it through executive order.”
This constitutional foundation for Florida AI policy is crucial. Executive orders carry weight within the executive branch, but they don’t automatically override state authority the way federal legislation can. DeSantis is betting that if the DOJ challenges Florida AI policy, courts will side with states’ rights under the Tenth Amendment. Legal experts watching Florida AI policy developments note this constitutional argument has merit.
The governor also noted something clever about Florida AI policy: much of what Florida AI policy addresses actually aligns with what the Trump administration claims to support. “If you read it, they actually say a lot of the stuff we’re talking about are things that they’re encouraging states to do,” DeSantis said. “They say it doesn’t prevent child safety, it doesn’t prevent any of that stuff.”
It’s a political judo move. By focusing Florida AI policy on child protection, consumer transparency, and banning Chinese AI tools, DeSantis makes it politically awkward for the administration to sue. The Florida AI policy framework essentially challenges the administration to oppose child safety.
DeSantis pointed out a certain irony in congressional Republicans who supported a failed 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation. “What they said is, we don’t want California doing things that are woke or all this other stuff. Like, yeah, I mean, I don’t either, but that’s not a reason to take away Florida’s rights.”
This defense of Florida AI policy resonates with conservatives who traditionally champion states’ rights. The Florida AI policy debate has scrambled traditional political alignments.
Florida AI policy doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The significance of Florida AI policy extends nationwide. It’s part of a nationwide scramble as states rush to fill the regulatory void left by federal inaction.
According to Brookings Institution research, 47 states introduced AI-related legislation in 2025. That’s nearly every state in the union acknowledging that AI governance can’t wait for Congress. The numbers tell a story about where Florida AI policy fits:
| State | AI Bills Introduced (2025) | Bills Passed |
|---|---|---|
| New York | Most introduced | Several pending |
| Texas | Multiple introduced | Most passed |
| California | Dozens introduced | Mixed results |
| Colorado | Comprehensive approach | Delayed implementation |
| Florida | Bill of Rights proposal | Pending legislation |
What makes Florida AI policy notable isn’t just its content—it’s the timing and the political statement it makes. DeSantis is essentially saying: we won’t be bullied into regulatory paralysis. The Florida AI policy approach signals a willingness to act despite federal pressure.
Critics of state-level regulation, including many tech companies, argue that Florida AI policy and similar initiatives create compliance nightmares. Imagine an AI startup trying to follow different rules in Florida, California, Texas, and New York simultaneously. The overhead alone could crush smaller players.
But defenders of state action counter that federal gridlock leaves consumers unprotected. “States are filling a federal vacuum,” as one analyst put it. When Congress can’t act, someone has to.
Here’s the uncomfortable truth driving both Florida AI policy and similar efforts nationwide: AI isn’t some future technology we have time to contemplate. It’s embedded in systems making consequential decisions right now. This reality makes Florida AI policy and other state efforts urgent rather than premature.
Consider where AI already operates:
When a 14-year-old dies after months of interaction with an AI chatbot, as happened in the case discussed at DeSantis’s roundtable, the abstract debate becomes painfully concrete. This tragedy drives much of the urgency behind Florida AI policy.
Proponents of Florida AI policy and state-level regulation more broadly offer several arguments worth considering. The case for Florida AI policy rests on practical considerations as much as philosophical ones.
Congress has been debating AI regulation for years without producing comprehensive legislation. In that same timeframe, states have experimented with various approaches, learning what works and what doesn’t. Florida AI policy represents another data point in this ongoing experiment. Advocates argue Florida AI policy will generate lessons regardless of outcome.
Different states have different priorities. What matters most to Floridians might differ from what concerns Californians or Texans. State-level regulation allows communities to reflect their values in governance. If Florida wants stronger parental controls on AI chatbots, why shouldn’t Floridians have that choice? This localism argument appeals to federalism advocates.
Counterintuitively, clear rules might actually attract business. Companies operating in regulatory uncertainty face different challenges than those navigating defined parameters. Some argue Florida AI policy could position the state as a leader in responsible AI development. The economic dimension deserves more attention than it typically receives.
Not everyone cheers Florida AI policy and the broader state-level trend. Critics raise concerns that deserve serious consideration. The objections aren’t merely self-interested industry complaints.
A company building an AI product faces potentially conflicting requirements across states. Do you build 50 different versions? Do you default to the most restrictive rules? The complexity isn’t trivial. Critics argue this adds another layer to an already complicated landscape.
When states compete on regulation, outcomes vary. Some might under-regulate to attract business, creating havens for harmful AI applications. Others might over-regulate, stifling beneficial innovation. Florida AI policy critics worry about this unpredictable landscape. Whether this ends up being too strict or too lenient remains to be seen.
AI systems don’t respect state borders. A model trained in one state operates everywhere. Foreign adversaries don’t care whether Florida AI policy differs from California’s—they exploit systemic weaknesses wherever they find them. This national security critique comes from both parties.
Understanding Florida AI policy requires understanding DeSantis’s political positioning. This isn’t his first rodeo challenging federal authority.
DeSantis has consistently emphasized state sovereignty across multiple policy areas. Whether it’s education, public health, or now AI, his philosophy prioritizes state decision-making over federal mandates. Florida AI policy fits perfectly within this framework.
AI has become ideological territory. Conservative critics worry about “woke AI” embedding progressive values into models. Progressive critics fear unregulated AI enabling discrimination and exploitation. DeSantis positions Florida AI policy as protecting Floridians from both big government and big tech overreach.
Political observers note that Florida AI policy provides DeSantis a platform to demonstrate leadership on emerging issues. Whether or not he seeks higher office again, establishing Florida as a model for AI governance serves multiple political purposes.
If you’re building AI products, Florida AI policy demands attention regardless of where you’re based.
Companies operating in Florida will need to:
Florida AI policy could affect different companies differently. Well-resourced tech giants can afford compliance teams and multiple product versions. Smaller startups might struggle with the overhead. Alternatively, clear rules could level the playing field, giving startups predictable parameters to design around.
Does Florida AI policy enhance or restrict innovation? Honest observers disagree. Some regulations might slow development. Others might channel innovation toward safer, more beneficial applications. The answer probably depends on which regulations and how they’re implemented.
Let me offer you my take on Florida AI policy and this broader moment in American technology governance.
We’re past asking whether AI should be regulated. The question now is who regulates it and how. Florida AI policy represents one answer—let states lead while Washington dithers.
The Trump administration’s executive order simultaneously claims federal authority while lacking comprehensive federal legislation to exercise it. DeSantis noticed this gap. Florida AI policy exploits the space between federal aspiration and federal action.
Here’s the uncomfortable reality: both aggressive state regulation and complete federal preemption have downsides. Florida AI policy might protect Floridians while complicating national AI development. Federal inaction might enable innovation while leaving citizens unprotected.
The ideal outcome—thoughtful, coordinated governance balancing innovation and protection—remains elusive. But waiting for perfection means accepting ongoing harm. That’s the tension Florida AI policy tries to resolve, imperfectly but urgently.
The Florida AI policy saga is just beginning. Here’s what to watch:
Florida legislators must now take DeSantis’s proposals and craft actual laws. Expect heated debates about specific provisions, industry lobbying, and potential amendments. The final Florida AI policy legislation may differ from the governor’s initial framework.
If Florida enacts its AI Bill of Rights, will the DOJ challenge it? The executive order authorizes such challenges, but political calculations might prevent them. Suing a Republican governor over child safety protections carries risks.
California, Texas, New York, and Colorado have their own AI regulatory efforts underway. Florida AI policy outcomes will influence how other states proceed. Success might encourage similar initiatives. Failure—whether through litigation or implementation challenges—might discourage them.
Pressure builds on Congress to actually do something. The louder states act, the harder it becomes for federal legislators to remain passive. Florida AI policy might paradoxically accelerate federal action by demonstrating what happens when Washington doesn’t lead.
DeSantis’s push underscores something we can no longer ignore: AI governance has become urgent. Florida AI policy might succeed brilliantly or stumble badly. Either way, it forces a conversation we desperately need.
The governor’s assertion that “we have a right to do this” captures the moment’s essential tension. States do have rights. But AI doesn’t recognize state lines. Protecting citizens requires action, but fragmented action might create new problems.
One thing seems clear: Florida AI policy represents the beginning of a decisive, decentralized phase in American AI governance. The laboratories of democracy are open for experiments. Some experiments will work. Others won’t. But at least someone is trying.
What do you think? Should states like Florida lead on AI regulation, or does America need a unified federal approach? The debate is just getting started—and your voice matters.
Have thoughts on Florida AI policy? Share this article and join the conversation about who should govern artificial intelligence in America.
Florida’s AI Bill of Rights is Governor DeSantis’s proposed framework for Florida AI policy that includes consumer protections against deep fakes, requirements for AI transparency, bans on Chinese AI tools in government, parental controls for minors using AI platforms, and restrictions on AI use in insurance decisions.
According to DeSantis, states retain regulatory authority because executive orders cannot preempt state laws—only congressional legislation can do that. The Florida AI policy proposal focuses on areas the executive order explicitly exempts, including child safety and state procurement.
Companies operating in Florida would need to implement consent mechanisms for using people’s likenesses, build transparency features, establish compliant data handling practices, and develop parental controls for products reaching minors.
Florida AI policy emerged from concerns about AI-related harms, including high-profile cases of children harmed by AI chatbots, data privacy issues, and the potential for AI to make consequential decisions about insurance and healthcare without human oversight.
The Florida Legislature must introduce and pass legislation based on DeSantis’s proposals. The exact timeline depends on the legislative session schedule and any debates or amendments that arise during the lawmaking process.
This article was last updated December 16, 2025. For the latest developments on Florida AI policy, check official government sources and reputable news outlets.
AI Chips Today: Nvidia's Dominance Faces New Tests as the AI Race Evolves Discover why…
AI Reshaping Careers by 2035: Sam Altman Warns of "Pain Before the Payoff" Sam Altman…
Gemini AI Photo: The Ultimate Tool That's Making Photoshop Users Jealous Discover how Gemini AI…
Nvidia Groq Chips Deal Signals a Major Shift in the AI Compute Power Balance Meta…
Connecting AI with HubSpot/ActiveCampaign for Smarter Automation: The Ultimate 2025 Guide Table of Contents Master…
Italy Orders Meta to Suspend WhatsApp AI Terms Amid Antitrust Probe What It Means for…