How CIOs are responding to AI oversight uncertainty
Trump's AI executive orders aim to strengthen U.S. AI leadership, but they do not eliminate existing state AI laws. IT leaders explain why proactive AI governance remains critical.
The Trump administration's December 2025 and June 2026 AI executive orders reflect its broader goal of strengthening U.S. leadership in AI. When asked about the December 2025 order specifically, CIOs and industry experts highlighted the following:
The executive order aims to reduce a patchwork of state AI regulations and move the U.S. toward a more unified national approach.
The order does not eliminate existing state AI laws, and organizations still need to navigate changing AI requirements.
CIOs should self-regulate instead of waiting for additional federal action.
Organizations with mature AI governance frameworks can adapt more easily as AI laws, regulations and standards continue to evolve.
The White House is focused on the U.S. winning the AI race. However, CIOs can't afford to take their eyes off AI governance.
In December 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order seeking to reduce a patchwork of state AI regulations and move the U.S. toward a more unified national approach. In June 2026, he signed another executive order focused on national security risks from advanced AI systems and how the federal government works with developers of those systems. While the orders address different issues, both reflect the administration's broader goal of strengthening U.S. leadership in AI.
The June order could have a more direct effect on organizations that develop advanced AI systems, work directly with the federal government on those capabilities or partner with developers that the order will affect. For most CIOs, however, the December 2025 order could be more relevant, as they are managing AI adoption and governance rather than building frontier models.
To understand how IT leaders are responding to the administration's AI policy direction, TechTarget asked three CIOs, two industry analysts and one technology attorney the same question: How are you responding to Trump's December 2025 executive order? Here's what they had to say.
How are you responding to Trump's December 2025 AI executive order?
"The biggest effect it had on clients was that it really showed the stance of the executive branch. There have been a lot of talks about how America really wants to win the AI race, whatever that means, but seeing the executive branch actually put out that order, it became clear they're going to put their money where their mouth is and try to stop states from creating a regulatory regime that could hinder the progress of AI.
What a lot of my clients did was start turning internally and going, 'Hey, we got to keep an eye on stuff at the federal level and the state level, but if we want AI governance -- if our customers and internal stakeholders expect that -- that's going to be something that's homegrown and we're doing from our own best practice standpoint.'"
-- Tyler Thompson, partner and attorney, Reed Smith's Emerging Technologies group
"It didn't affect us because we operate in multiple jurisdictions and markets. A lot of the time, our frameworks and governance standards are ahead of the legal framework.
Most advanced companies using AI and AI governance are well ahead of the legislative frameworks that are set.
Joe Locandro Global CIO, Rimini Street
In fact, you'll find that most advanced companies using AI and AI governance are well ahead of the legislative frameworks that are set. A good example is the current ISO standards for AI. We met the ISO standards before they even became standards because we were working through this ourselves."
-- Joe Locandro, global CIO, Rimini Street
"For our organization, we haven't had to adjust to the December 2025 executive order, and it really targets the federal position. It's a push toward minimal governance to 'drive innovation' and how they want to put legal elements in place to offset the ability of different states to establish their own requirements.
We can easily operate within our own parameters without any implications at the U.S. federal level -- it doesn't prevent us from applying governance. More specific governance under this level of complexity is more important, not less, and will drive more innovation.
I don't think it has much impact on client companies unless they work with the U.S. federal government on sensitive -- sovereignty or national security -- elements. There is some confusion on how to apply it under those circumstances."
-- Valence Howden, advisory fellow, Info-Tech Research Group
"I have had a few members ask for guidance. In general, I've pointed out the administration's track record in delivering legislation -- which is none. Most are watching if the administration takes action -- nothing's changed since December 2025. The most productive thing members can do is implement an AI governance program to self-regulate and not wait for anything to come from the administration.
The most productive thing members can do is implement an AI governance program to self-regulate.
Bill Wong Research fellow, Info-Tech Research Group
With a robust governance program, if legislation does come out, they will likely have little to no work to perform because they already have a robust governance program in place."
-- Bill Wong, research fellow, Info-Tech Research Group
"We look at federal, state and even county-level laws as part of our business. The interesting thing about federal laws is that states can build on top of them. So, we see that as just another on-ramp into the amount of regulation that we could have."
-- Jason Landrum, global CIO, Sedgwick
"The same way we respond to any significant regulatory development: We analyze it carefully, understand what it genuinely requires and integrate those requirements into our existing governance and technical controls. We do not treat compliance as a performance.
As a Swedish company operating globally, we hold our decisions to account against both EU and U.S. frameworks simultaneously, and increasingly against regulatory developments in other major markets as well. When the EU AI Act and U.S. approaches align, that alignment reinforces our direction. When they diverge, we work to understand the intent behind each requirement and find approaches that satisfy both without unnecessary duplication."
-- Jonas Hansson, CIO, Axis Communications
Tim Murphy is a site editor and writer for the IT Strategy team at TechTarget.
