A bill to prohibit the use of Federal funds to implement the Executive order entitled "Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence".

This bill represents a direct legislative intervention to block the implementation of an Executive Order titled 'Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence.' The legislation aims to prevent any federal funds from being used to carry out, implement, or enforce the provisions of this Executive Order. The bill reflects a fundamental disagreement between the legislative and executive branches regarding the appropriate approach to artificial intelligence governance at the federal level. By cutting off funding for the Executive Order's implementation, Congress seeks to nullify the executive branch's attempt to establish a comprehensive national AI policy framework through unilateral executive action. This represents a significant assertion of congressional authority over AI policy development and demonstrates the ongoing political tensions surrounding how the federal government should regulate and manage artificial intelligence technologies.

The bill contains a single operative provision that establishes an absolute prohibition on the use of federal funds to implement the referenced Executive Order on artificial intelligence policy. This funding prohibition applies comprehensively across all federal agencies and departments, preventing any appropriated funds from being allocated, obligated, or expended for purposes related to carrying out the Executive Order's directives. The provision does not create exceptions or carve-outs for specific aspects of the Executive Order, nor does it establish a sunset date for the prohibition. The legislation does not amend existing statutory authorities or create new programs; instead, it functions purely as a limitation on the use of appropriated funds. The bill takes effect upon enactment and applies to all federal funds regardless of the fiscal year in which they were appropriated.

The bill does not designate specific agencies responsible for enforcement or establish formal compliance mechanisms. Implementation occurs through the standard appropriations process, where federal agencies would be legally barred from using any appropriated funds for activities related to the Executive Order. The Office of Management and Budget would likely play an implicit role in ensuring agencies comply with the funding restriction through its oversight of federal spending. No reporting requirements are established to track compliance or document the impact of the funding prohibition. Enforcement would occur through existing appropriations law mechanisms, including potential violations of the Antideficiency Act if agencies attempt to obligate funds contrary to the prohibition. The lack of specific implementation guidance creates ambiguity regarding how agencies should handle ongoing activities that may have been initiated under the Executive Order prior to the bill's enactment.

The bill would halt all federal government efforts to implement a coordinated national artificial intelligence policy framework as envisioned by the Executive Order. Federal agencies engaged in AI policy development, research coordination, or regulatory framework establishment under the Executive Order would be forced to cease these activities. The prohibition affects not only direct implementation costs but also any ancillary expenses related to the Executive Order, including personnel time, administrative support, and interagency coordination efforts. The legislation provides no cost estimates or analysis of the budgetary impact, though the effect would be to prevent expenditures rather than authorize new spending. The administrative burden falls primarily on federal agencies that must identify and discontinue activities connected to the Executive Order. The absence of a sunset provision means the prohibition remains in effect indefinitely unless repealed by subsequent legislation. The broader impact extends to the United States' ability to develop comprehensive AI governance structures, potentially affecting American competitiveness in AI development and deployment relative to other nations with coordinated national AI strategies.

The bill rests on Congress's constitutional power of the purse under Article I, Section 9, which grants Congress exclusive authority to control federal appropriations and expenditures. This constitutional authority allows Congress to place limitations on how executive branch agencies may spend appropriated funds, even when those limitations conflict with executive branch policy priorities. The legislation operates as a limitation rider, a common legislative mechanism for restricting the use of federal funds for specific purposes. The bill does not directly repeal or modify the Executive Order itself, which remains legally valid as an exercise of executive authority, but renders it unenforceable by eliminating the financial means of implementation. This approach avoids direct constitutional confrontation over the President's authority to issue Executive Orders while achieving the practical effect of nullifying the Order's impact. The funding prohibition does not preempt state or local AI policies, as it operates solely at the federal level. No explicit judicial review provisions are included, though agencies or affected parties could potentially challenge the prohibition through standard administrative law mechanisms if they believe it creates constitutional conflicts or practical impossibilities in agency operations.

The bill raises significant concerns about the separation of powers and the appropriate balance between congressional and executive authority in emerging technology policy. While Congress possesses clear constitutional authority to control appropriations, using this power to completely defund executive policy initiatives creates potential governance challenges, particularly in rapidly evolving areas like artificial intelligence where coordinated federal action may be necessary for effective regulation and international competitiveness. The legislation provides no alternative framework for AI governance, creating a policy vacuum that could leave the United States without coherent federal AI policy direction. Implementation challenges include determining which agency activities are sufficiently connected to the Executive Order to trigger the funding prohibition, potentially creating legal uncertainty and chilling legitimate AI-related activities. The bill offers no mechanism for addressing urgent AI policy needs that may arise, requiring new legislation for any federal AI initiatives. Opposition arguments likely center on the need for executive flexibility in technology policy, the importance of maintaining U.S. leadership in AI governance, and the risk that legislative gridlock could prevent any meaningful federal AI policy development. The absence of findings or explanatory language in the bill leaves the rationale for the prohibition unclear, making it difficult to assess whether specific concerns about the Executive Order could be addressed through amendments rather than complete defunding.