- Posts by Rachel Snyder GoodStrategic Counsel
Attorney Rachel Snyder Good leverages 11 years of legislative experience on Capitol Hill to help health care organizations create better health outcomes and modernize the health care industry, particularly in the areas of ...
On July 23, 2025, the president signed three AI-related Executive Orders (“E.O.s”) to accompany the recently released White House’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) Action Plan (“AI Action Plan”). These E.O.s seek to add clarity to, and drive forward, federal policy in the AI space.
While they all relate to AI, the E.O.s otherwise vary considerably in subject matter: “Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure”; “Promoting the Export of the American AI Technology Stack”; and “Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government.”
As we noted in our July 24 blog, the White House is clearly determined to outpace other countries so that the U.S. benefits from any gains provided by AI through building AI infrastructure and bolstering AI-related exports. The Center for Data Innovation, from its perspective, stated in a press release that the actions pursued by the executive orders will advance U.S. goals of global AI dominance and enable the U.S. to better compete with China.
The long-awaited White House Artificial Intelligence (AI) Action Plan (“AI Action Plan”) is here, setting forth the Trump administration’s policy recommendations to achieve the goal of “global AI dominance.”
The White House released the AI Action Plan on July 23, 2025, and delivered remarks on the plan during an AI summit. The same day, the president signed three AI-related Executive Orders to further the AI Action Plan, relating to: 1) “Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure”; 2) “Promoting the Export of the American AI Technology Stack”; and 3) “Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government.” Yet it remains to be seen whether and how successfully the AI Action Plan will unfold—particularly with respect to impacts on incongruous state regulatory action.
Likening the global AI race to the space race during the Cold War, the introduction to the 28-page AI Action Plan emphasizes the need “to innovate faster and more comprehensively than our competitors in the development and distribution of new AI technology across every field and dismantle unnecessary regulatory barriers that hinder the private sector in doing so.”
It’s July, and the White House Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) Action Plan (“Action Plan” or “the plan”) is almost here.
In Executive Order 14179 of January 23, 2025—entitled “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence”—President Donald Trump directed federal officials to develop an Action Plan to achieve the policies of sustaining and enhancing America’s dominance in global AI. The plan is expected to drop by July 23, to coincide with an address by the President outlining his vision for American AI.
The release of the Action Plan will follow a number of recent developments in AI at the state and federal levels that show no signs of abating. On July 15, for instance, the White House announced $90 billion in energy and data center investments in Pennsylvania, according to Reuters. Bloomberg reported the same day that President Trump is planning to sign another executive order to implement the Action Plan upon its release to push the policy forward.
On May 17, 2024, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed Colorado’s historic artificial intelligence (AI) consumer protection bill, SB 24-205, colloquially known as “Colorado’s AI Act” (“CAIA”), into law. As we noted at the time, CAIA aims to prevent algorithmic discrimination in AI decision-making that affects “consequential decisions”—including those with a material, legal, or similarly significant effect with respect to health care services and employment decision-making. The bill is scheduled to take effect February 1, 2026.
The same day he signed CAIA, however, Governor Polis addressed a “signing statement” letter to Colorado’s General Assembly articulating his reservations. He urged sponsors, stakeholders, industry leaders, and more to “fine tune” the measure over the next two years to sufficiently protect technology, competition, and innovation in the state.
As the local and national political climate steers toward a less restrictive AI policy, Governor Polis drafted another letter to the Colorado legislature. On May 5, 2025, Polis—along with Attorney General Phil Weiser, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, and others—requested that CAIA’s effective date be delayed until January 2027.
On October 23, 2024, Dr. Jill Biden, first lady of the United States, announced the winners of $110 million in awards on behalf of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) to accelerate transformative research and development in women’s health.
“It’s time for investors, researchers, and business leaders to have [conversations about women’s health], not as an afterthought but as a first thought,” Dr. Biden said in her prepared remarks. “Those kinds of questions belong in your research proposals, in your laboratories, in your pitch decks.”
The awards will go to 23 teams from small startups to global innovators working to further developments in women’s health—with projects ranging from a non-invasive blood test to diagnose endometriosis to a revolutionary treatment for late-stage and metastatic ovarian cancer.
Key Takeaways
- Federal courts are no longer required to defer to federal agencies’ reasonable regulatory interpretation of ambiguous federal statutes under the 1984 Chevron
- In this new Loper landscape, increased engagement at all points of the federal legislative and federal regulatory process is more important than ever, especially for those in the heavily regulated health care industry.
I. What Did the Supreme Court Do? What Changed with the Loper decision?
In a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court overruled the longstanding Chevron doctrine—under which federal courts would defer to federal agencies’ interpretation of their own statutes if the underlying statute was ambiguous and the interpretation was reasonable. The Court determined that this Chevron deference was inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) tasking to federal courts the duty to interpret federal statutes. Although the Court overruled the original decision in Chevron, the Court went out of its way to state that it “does not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework. The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful—including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself—are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite the Court’s change in interpretive methodology.”
As stated in an amicus brief authored by prominent advocates, and as discussed at oral arguments, health care, as one of the most regulated industries, will be significantly impacted by the end of Chevron deference.
Federal regulatory agencies may have to alter their use of existing statutes to address new concerns under the post-Chevron landscape. Federal agencies also may have to go back to Congress to address new, emerging regulatory concerns not yet considered by statute.
On October 30, 2023, President Joe Biden signed the first ever Executive Order (EO) that specifically directs federal agencies on the use and regulation of Artificial Intelligence (AI). A Fact Sheet for this EO is also available.
This EO is a significant milestone as companies and other organizations globally grapple with the trustworthy use and creation of AI. Previous Biden-Harris Administration action on AI have been guidance of principles (e.g., the AI Bill of Rights) or have been targeted guidance on a particular aspect of AI such as the Executive Order Addressing Racial ...
On August 24, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an opinion and order in Texas Medical Association, et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services(“HHS”)(“TMA III”). TMA III challenged certain portions of the July 2021 No Surprises Act (“NSA”) interim final rules proposed by the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury, along with the Office of Personnel Management (the “Departments”). In a decision that significantly levels the field for providers, the District Court ruled in part ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- AI Infrastructure, Ideology, and Exports: Inside the White House’s New AI Orders
- Texas Judge Strikes Down HIPAA’s Reproductive Health Amendment
- White House AI Action Plan Drops: Here’s What We Know
- AI Policy Alert: What to Know Before the White House Releases Its AI Action Plan
- Ninth Circuit Applies EKRA to Marketing Intermediaries in Lab Operator’s Allergy Testing Scheme