90 Days to Clarity: The Federal Timeline That Will Reshape AI Governance
New Executive Order on AI (Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence): Board Director Perspective
By March 11, 2026, corporate boards should know which state AI laws the federal government intends to challenge. That date, is 90 days from President Trump’s December 11, 2025 executive order, and marks the deadline for Commerce to publish its evaluation of “onerous” state AI laws. The countdown has begun.
The EO titled “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence“ establishes the most aggressive federal posture toward state AI regulation to date. It creates a DOJ litigation task force, initiates multiple preemption proceedings, and ties federal broadband funding to state AI policy. The next 90 days will determine the specific shape of these challenges.
Critical Milestones
January 10, 2026 (30 days): DOJ must establish the AI Litigation Task Force. This dedicated unit has one mandate—challenging state AI laws on constitutional and preemption grounds. Expect the first federal lawsuit announcements shortly after.
February 1, 2026 (52 days): Colorado’s SB24-205 takes effect. This comprehensive AI law—requiring developer and deployer “reasonable care” to prevent algorithmic discrimination, plus extensive documentation and impact assessments—is explicitly cited in the EO as an example of problematic state regulation. The law becomes enforceable regardless of federal proceedings.
March 11, 2026 (90 days): Three simultaneous deadlines converge:
Commerce evaluation identifying target state AI laws
BEAD policy notice on state funding ineligibility
FTC policy statement on AI output requirements and federal deception law
June 2026 (approximately 180 days): FCC must initiate proceeding on a federal AI disclosure standard with preemptive effect.
What Gets Targeted
The EO directs Commerce to identify two categories of state laws:
Altered Truthful Outputs: State laws that require AI models to modify outputs in ways the administration characterizes as forcing “false” results. Colorado’s anti-discrimination requirements fall squarely in this category as framed by the EO.
Compelled Disclosures: State transparency and reporting requirements that may raise First Amendment concerns in the administration’s view. California’s AB 2013 (GenAI training data transparency, effective January 1, 2026) and various state AI disclosure mandates are potential targets.
The March evaluation will name specific laws. That list becomes the federal government’s litigation and enforcement roadmap.
The Board Calendar
This Week:
Confirm management has current inventory of state AI law obligations
Identify operations in Colorado, Illinois, Texas, and California with 2026 effective dates
Assess whether current AI disclosures or output practices may be characterized as “altered truthful outputs”
January 2026:
Monitor DOJ task force establishment and any early litigation signals
Prepare Colorado SB24-205 compliance for February 1 effective date
Brief board on state law obligations and federal challenge landscape
March 2026:
Review the Commerce evaluation upon publication
Assess whether your state obligations appear on the target list
Consider participation in FCC/FTC proceedings if relevant to your operations
Ongoing Through 2026:
Track DOJ litigation filings and court rulings
Maintain state compliance unless specific laws are enjoined
Document board oversight of AI governance decisions
The Practical Reality
Here is the essential governance point: the 90-day federal timeline clarifies federal intentions but does not change current legal obligations.
State laws remain enforceable on their own schedules. Federal challenges take years to resolve through litigation. Agency rulemakings require notice, comment, and often survive legal challenge. Congressional action requires passage by both chambers and presidential signature.
Boards must govern in the gap between federal policy announcements and actual legal changes. That gap may last well into 2027 or beyond.
The Strategic Response
Parallel Compliance: Plan to meet state requirements that remain in force while monitoring federal challenges that may eventually alter the landscape.
Enhanced Documentation: The litigation environment makes contemporaneous records of AI governance decisions valuable. Document the basis for compliance choices, risk tolerance decisions, and oversight activity.
Scenario Planning: Model what changes if specific state laws are enjoined. Build organizational capacity to adjust disclosure practices, documentation requirements, and output monitoring based on legal developments.
Federal Engagement: If the FCC opens a docket on federal AI disclosure standards, industry participation shapes outcomes. Companies with strong views on AI governance should prepare for comment opportunities.
The 90-Day Question
The question boards should pose to management before the March 11 Commerce evaluation: Do we have clear visibility into our state AI obligations, and do we know which of those requirements might appear on the federal target list?
The EO creates significant regulatory uncertainty. But uncertainty is not the same as legal change. Boards with a clear operational understanding of current requirements and monitoring systems to track legal developments will navigate this period effectively.