Newsom Weighs Executive Order or Special Session to Lock In California AI Rules

California Governor Gavin Newsom says he is not finished with artificial intelligence. Newsom confirmed this week that he plans to take further action on AI safety before he leaves office, and he is weighing two of the strongest tools he still has: an executive order signed from his own desk, or a special legislative session that would pull state lawmakers back to Sacramento.

The choice matters well beyond California. The state is home to the largest AI developers in the country, and the rules Newsom signs will shape what the industry builds next. He is also running out of time. Newsom is term-limited and leaves office in January 2027, which leaves a narrow window to finish work the Legislature did not complete on its own.

A Governor Racing His Own Clock

California has argued with itself over artificial intelligence for two years. The state hosts the companies it wants to regulate, and the lawmakers writing the rules answer to districts full of their employees. That tension has slowed every serious attempt to set limits.

Pressure from inside the labs has made the standoff harder to manage. Researchers at major AI developers have publicly described risks they say grow with each new model, and some have left their positions to say so. The debate has moved from technical journals onto front pages, and state officials now face questions about it at nearly every public appearance.

Newsom's answer is to move before his term ends. An executive order would let him act alone and quickly, without the delays that come with a divided Legislature. A special session would be slower and riskier, but it would produce statutory law that a successor cannot erase with a signature.

From Veto to Signature

Newsom's record on artificial intelligence has bent in more than one direction. He vetoed an earlier version of the state's AI transparency legislation, which would have required developers to run pre-release safety checks on their most capable models. His objection was that fixed thresholds could not keep pace with technology that changes month to month.

Then he moved the other way. On September 9, Newsom signed a package establishing first-in-the-nation standards for third-party audits and independent assessments of AI systems. His office described the laws as a way to increase transparency and accountability without freezing development, and the governor used the moment to press Washington to act as well.

That record explains the options now on his desk. Audits and assessments are disclosure tools -- they force companies to show their work. An executive order or a special session could reach further, into testing requirements, state purchasing rules, or the obligations developers owe the public before a model is released.

Two Paths, Two Different Legacies

The mechanics of each path favor different outcomes. An executive order can be drafted, signed, and implemented without a single legislative vote, but it carries the weakness of every unilateral act: the next governor can rescind it on day one. A special session produces durable legislation, and it forces lawmakers to put their names on a recorded vote, but it also puts Newsom's priorities at the mercy of a body that has already declined to move quickly.

There is a practical deadline in the calendar as well. The regular session has closed, so a special session means reopening the Capitol and setting a narrow agenda. Governors use the tool sparingly, because it invites scrutiny of both the subject and the motive.

The federal contrast is sharp. President Donald Trump has treated American AI leadership as a strategic asset and argued that heavy-handed rules would weaken the country's position against its rivals. Trump has dismissed AI safety fears as a hoax while promoting a rapid domestic build-out of the data centers and chips that power the industry.

California is therefore shaping a second, competing framework. If Newsom acts through executive order, the state gets a fast and reversible set of rules. If he calls a session, the state gets permanence -- or a public failure that would define the last months of his tenure.

What to Watch

The first signal is whether a special session is actually called. Governors float the idea far more often than they use it, and an announcement would be followed quickly by a published agenda, which would reveal how far Newsom wants to go.

Watch the scope as well. A narrow order focused on state purchasing and audits would be modest. An order that reaches into model testing or deployment standards would be the most aggressive AI regulation any American state has imposed, and it would draw challenges from the industry almost immediately.

Finally, watch the laboratories themselves. Companies that fought earlier proposals have already adapted to the audit regime Newsom signed this month. Whether they resist a broader set of requirements -- or quietly accept them to avoid something worse -- will show how far California can push before the industry pushes back.