White House Launches RFI on Federal AI Regulations Hindering Innovation

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) has launched a Request for Information seeking input from businesses, academia, and the public on federal regulations that unnecessarily hinder artificial intelligence development, deployment, and adoption in the United States. The RFI represents a key component of the administration's broader strategy to promote AI innovation while maintaining necessary safeguards.

The initiative stems from America's AI Action Plan issued in July 2025, which directed OSTP to "launch a Request for Information from businesses and the public at large about current Federal regulations that hinder AI innovation or adoption, and work with relevant Federal agencies to take appropriate action." Comments are being accepted through October 27, 2025, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal.

Balancing Innovation and Regulation

The RFI reflects the administration's view that AI benefits cannot be realized through complete deregulation but require thoughtful policy frameworks that enable innovation while safeguarding public interest. OSTP emphasizes that suitable policy frameworks, both regulatory and non-regulatory, are critical to fostering public trust in AI technologies, leading to broader deployment and faster adoption.

This balanced approach marks a shift from previous AI policy initiatives. In January 2025, the administration rescinded Executive Order 14110, which emphasized safety standards and civil rights protections, replacing it with Executive Order 14179, "Removing Barriers to American Leadership in AI." The new order explicitly prioritizes AI innovation and U.S. competitiveness, instructing agencies to eliminate policies that might "hinder American AI dominance."

Areas of Regulatory Focus

The RFI seeks input across multiple dimensions of AI regulation. OSTP is particularly interested in identifying statutes, regulations, agency rules, guidance, forms, and administrative processes that unnecessarily slow safe, beneficial AI deployment. The scope encompasses federal actions across all agencies with potential impact on AI development.

Specific areas of inquiry include technical barriers arising from regulatory requirements, procedural obstacles in approval or compliance processes, and organizational factors affecting how federal statutes and policies are implemented. The RFI also seeks suggestions on how federal action might appropriately address identified barriers.

The request recognizes that regulatory challenges often exist at the intersection of technology and policy. Technical requirements may not account for AI's unique characteristics compared to traditional software. Approval processes designed for earlier technologies may create unnecessary delays. And organizational structures within federal agencies may not align well with AI's cross-cutting nature.

Industry and Academic Perspectives

The technology industry has long argued that excessive regulation could stifle AI innovation at a critical juncture. Industry groups contend that the United States must maintain a light regulatory touch to compete with countries pursuing aggressive AI development strategies, particularly China. They point to examples where regulatory uncertainty has delayed beneficial AI deployments or driven development overseas.

Academic institutions and research organizations offer mixed perspectives. Some researchers emphasize the need for streamlined approval processes that don't impede scientific progress, particularly in areas like healthcare AI where potential benefits are substantial. Others caution against dismantling safety-oriented regulations before their full value is understood, noting that some barriers serve important protective functions even if they create friction.

Consumer advocates and civil rights organizations have expressed concerns that deregulation could weaken protections around algorithmic bias, privacy, and accountability. They argue that many existing regulations serve legitimate purposes and that the focus should be on modernizing implementation rather than wholesale elimination.

State-Federal Dynamics

The RFI arrives amid increasing state-level AI regulation activity. Thirty-eight states enacted approximately 100 AI-related measures in 2025, creating a patchwork of requirements that businesses must navigate. Colorado became the first state to implement comprehensive AI regulation with its AI Act, which took effect in February 2025, establishing requirements for high-risk AI systems in employment and consumer contexts.

This proliferation of state laws reflects growing public concern about AI risks and the absence of federal preemptive legislation. However, the patchwork approach creates compliance challenges for companies operating across multiple states. Some industry groups argue for federal preemption to establish uniform national standards, while state governments and consumer advocates defend their right to protect residents when federal action is absent.

The tension between state and federal approaches represents a recurring theme in technology regulation. States often serve as laboratories for policy innovation, testing approaches that may later inform federal standards. However, inconsistent state requirements can create barriers to interstate commerce and disadvantage smaller companies lacking resources to navigate multiple regulatory regimes.

International Context

The U.S. approach contrasts sharply with regulatory frameworks adopted by other major economies. The European Union's AI Act, which began phased implementation in 2025, categorizes AI applications into risk tiers—from unacceptable to minimal risk—with stringent compliance requirements for high-risk systems. This comprehensive regulatory framework established the EU as a global leader in AI governance but raised concerns about potential innovation impacts.

China has pursued targeted sector-specific regulations, particularly around generative AI services, which require providers to ensure content is lawful and truthful while registering algorithms with regulators. China's approach balances government oversight with encouragement of domestic AI innovation, reflecting its strategic goal of AI leadership.

The divergence in regulatory philosophies creates challenges for multinational companies developing AI products for global markets. Systems designed to comply with stringent European requirements may be over-engineered for less regulated markets, while systems optimized for minimal U.S. regulation may face barriers in more restrictive jurisdictions.

Next Steps and Implementation

Following the comment period ending October 27, 2025, OSTP will work with relevant federal agencies to analyze submissions and determine appropriate actions. Possible outcomes range from guidance clarifying existing regulations to formal rulemaking processes modifying or eliminating identified barriers. The administration has emphasized that regulatory reform will be data-driven, focusing on barriers that genuinely impede innovation without serving compelling public interests.

The RFI represents an opportunity for stakeholders across the AI ecosystem to shape federal policy at a formative moment. As AI transitions from emerging technology to critical infrastructure, the regulatory frameworks established now will influence American competitiveness and innovation capacity for years to come. Whether the administration can strike an effective balance between enabling innovation and maintaining necessary safeguards will significantly impact the trajectory of U.S. AI development.