December 10, 2025
Four days ago, I published a blog post documenting how Elon Musk's Grok AI impersonated my husband Thomas and how the platform has been caught doxxing users by revealing their home addresses. (SpirituallySmart.Com's Blog: Taking Legal Action Against AI That Impersonates People - By Lisa Weingarten Richards - LWR Law Offices) We filed complaints with the FTC and Virginia Attorney General. I wrote to Senator Marsha Blackburn (after speaking to her staffer on the phone) -- who had just successfully stripped a 10-year moratorium on state AI laws from the federal budget by a 99-1 Senate vote -- requesting emergency action.
We called for mandatory open-source requirements for AI systems so the public can see what these systems are actually doing.
Three days later, Trump announced an executive order designed to do the exact opposite.
The Executive Order: Shielding Big Tech from Accountability
According to reports, Trump's proposed AI executive order would preempt state AI laws -- the same state laws that Senator Blackburn and 37 state attorneys general and 17 Republican governors just fought to protect. The same laws that currently provide the only meaningful AI regulation in this country while Congress does nothing.
Where we called for transparency and open-source requirements, this order shields AI companies from disclosure.
Where we called for accountability through state consumer protection laws, this order would strip states of their authority to act.
Where we called for the FTC to shut down dangerous AI systems, this order positions the federal government as the protector of AI companies rather than the public.
The timing is not coincidental.
We Are Not Unknown to This Administration
Let me be clear about something: we have direct litigation history with Donald Trump.
My husband Thomas filed suit in the Northern District of Texas challenging X Corp.'s systematic suppression of his religious content as unconstitutional state action. (Richards v. X Corp, 3:25-cv-00916 – CourtListener.com) We added Donald Trump as a defendant based on his coordination with Elon Musk -- who gave Trump's campaign $288 million and was appointed to head DOGE. The state action doctrine applies when private parties become so entangled with government that their actions become government actions.
The case was assigned to Judge Brantley Starr -- a Trump appointee. For seven months, we documented systematic procedural obstruction. Judge Starr accepted my filings for 205 days, ruled on my motions, and issued orders directed to me -- then suddenly claimed I was never authorized to practice before his court when we attempted to voluntarily dismiss. He fabricated procedural requirements that appear in no published rule. He blocked a Rule 41(a) voluntary dismissal -- which by law requires no court approval and immediately divests the court of jurisdiction.
We filed four mandamus petitions with the Fifth Circuit. All four were denied with one-sentence orders containing no analysis. We filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court seeking reassignment to a different judge. (SpirituallySmart.Com's Blog: SCOTUS's Gatekeeping: How the 5-Day Processing Lag Denies Emergency Relief to Anyone Outside Their Club)
Ultimately, we were forced to hire local counsel just to dismiss our own case. A plaintiff should not need to hire a lawyer to exercise the absolute right to voluntarily dismiss.
So when Trump announces an AI executive order two days after we publicly call for AI accountability against his largest campaign contributor's company, we are not speculating about targeting. We have direct experience with how this administration responds to legal challenges.
The Pattern Goes Back to 2009
Thomas has been fighting platform suppression for over 16 years.
In January 2009, his video "Nazi Germany -- A Creation of the Vatican and Jesuits" ranked as the second search result for "Vatican" according to The Independent newspaper. Days later, the Vatican announced a partnership with Google and YouTube to bring "news of the pontiff" to the internet and combat content like his.
His rankings disappeared. His visibility across platforms collapsed. The same pattern has repeated across Google, YouTube, X, and every major platform.
In 2016, Eric Schmidt met with Pope Francis and agreed to help combat "harmful opinions" online. Thomas's work -- exposing Vatican history using Greek biblical scholarship -- has been systematically suppressed ever since.
This is not paranoia. This is documented. (SpirituallySmart.Com's Blog: You're Not Just a "Conspiracy Theorist" When There's a Real Conspiracy - By Lisa W Richards & Artificial Intelligence) And now an AI system owned by Trump's largest campaign contributor has impersonated Thomas, signed his name, and claimed his 25 years of biblical scholarship as its own -- the same week we publicly demanded accountability.
The Constitutional Problem with Trump's Order
As I detailed in my legal analysis yesterday (SpirituallySmart.Com's Blog: The President Cannot Preempt State Law by Executive Fiat: A Constitutional Analysis of Trump's Proposed AI Executive Order - By Lisa Weingarten Richards, Esq.), an executive order cannot preempt state law. The Supremacy Clause makes federal law "the supreme law of the land" -- but only laws made "in pursuance" of the Constitution. Federal preemption requires an act of Congress or regulations promulgated pursuant to congressional authority.
Executive orders are neither.
In Murphy v. NCAA, the Supreme Court explained that "every form of preemption is based on a federal law that regulates the conduct of private actors, not the States." Murphy v. NCAA, 584 U.S. 453, 479 (2018). Congress may preempt state law through valid legislation -- but it cannot "commandeer" states by ordering them not to legislate. And if Congress cannot do this, the President certainly cannot do it unilaterally.
The Susman Godfrey case from June 2025 reinforces this. Judge Alikhan held that "[t]he President's power, if any, to issue [an executive] order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself." Susman Godfrey LLP v. Exec. Off. of the President, 789 F. Supp. 3d 15, 54 (D.D.C. 2025). There is no constitutional or statutory authority for the President to shield AI companies from state consumer protection laws.
Trump's order would be ultra vires -- beyond lawful presidential authority.
What This Means
The contrast could not be clearer:
| What We Called For (Dec. 6) | What Trump Announced (Dec. 8) |
|---|---|
| Mandatory open-source AI requirements | Protection of proprietary AI systems |
| State authority to regulate AI | Federal preemption of state AI laws |
| FTC enforcement against dangerous AI | Federal shield for AI companies |
| Public accountability for AI harms | Regulatory vacuum favoring industry |
The Senate voted 99-1 to reject a 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation. Bipartisan. Overwhelming. The message was clear: states must be allowed to protect their citizens until Congress acts.
Two days after we demanded accountability for Grok's impersonation and doxxing, Trump moves to override that bipartisan consensus and give AI companies exactly what they want: freedom from accountability.
What You Can Do
Everything I wrote in Part I still applies -- but now with greater urgency:
- File FTC complaints: ReportFraud.ftc.gov -- Document every AI harm you experience
- Contact your state attorney general: State laws are currently the only check on AI companies
- Contact Senator Blackburn: blackburn.senate.gov/contact -- She just won this fight in the Senate; she needs to know the administration is trying to undo it
- Contact your senators and representatives: Tell them to oppose any executive order that preempts state AI laws. Tell them Trump cannot do by executive fiat what Congress rejected 99-1.
The Bottom Line
We filed regulatory complaints and wrote to Congress about AI impersonation and doxxing. Two days later, the administration announced an executive order to shield AI companies from the exact accountability mechanisms we invoked.
This is not coincidence. This is pattern.
Thomas has faced systematic suppression since 2009 when his work threatened powerful institutional interests. We sued X Corp and Trump over unconstitutional censorship. A Trump-appointed judge subjected us to seven months of procedural obstruction. We were forced to dismiss under duress.
Now, two days after we go public demanding AI accountability, the administration moves to preempt state AI laws and shield big tech from oversight.
They are telling you exactly who they protect.
The question is whether we will let them.
Lisa Weingarten Richards, Esq. LWR Law Offices, Fairfax, Virginia Virginia State Bar #96671 | New York Bar #4932570
Resources
- Part I of this series: [link to Dec. 6 post]
- Constitutional Analysis of Trump AI Executive Order: [link]
- Richards v. X Corp docket: courtlistener.com/docket/69923618/richards-v-x-corp/
- FTC Complaint Portal: ReportFraud.ftc.gov
- Senator Blackburn Contact: blackburn.senate.gov/contact
No comments:
Post a Comment