Artificial intelligence is one of the targets of President Donald Trump’s executive order gusts of wind. One order rescinded the 2023 order in 2024 establishing the AI regulatory system that formed the basis for many new policies, guidelines and regulations.
We have instructed the third enforcement body to roll back existing regulations and create new regulations around AI. This AI EO does not include detailed guidelines on what a new regulatory system should look like, but provides an overview of future steps and objectives.
Given that details have not yet been established, AI EO could trigger a reorganization of the US approach to AI policy. It is important to monitor agencies to identify which regulations will be rolled back, what will be changed, what will be implemented, and what will be impacted on individual businesses.
AI EO defines several specific actions that will take place within a specified time frame.
The Bureau of Management and Budget must modify existing policy memos within 60 days to ensure alignment with the new strategic framework. A comprehensive AI action plan must be developed within 180 days of detailed measures to strengthen the US global AI leadership, with a focus on economic competitiveness, human welfare and national security. Agent heads should identify regulations as needed and suspend, amend or withdraw them if they hinder AI innovation.
AI EO positions AI development as a strategic national mandate. The regulatory framework at the state and international level, and the Biden administration’s framework, highlights safety and ethical considerations, while AI EO emphasizes the creation of American leadership in AI technology at the global stage.
Key presidential advisors, including assistants to the president of science and technology, new special advisors in AI and cryptography, and assistants in national security issues, will guide the AI plan of action within 180 days of AI issuance. EO.
AI EO reflects some degree of continuity with policies that have progressed during the first Trump administration, particularly its focus on technical leadership, national competitiveness, and deregulation approaches to innovation.
The language on removing “barriers to American AI innovation” is consistent with previous strategies aimed at promoting economic and technological nationalism, and the burden of regulatory perceived as obstacles to AI advancement. highlights the ongoing federal commitment to reducing the number.
By instructing the agency’s heads and others to identify actions that are “conflict or likely to present the new policy, the AI EO will be able to provide the existing (Biden) (Previous) suggests that regulations or previous instructions are possible. Match the new policy.
Therefore, if existing policies are retained, it is unclear what actions will be taken, including collecting public input from AI stakeholders, and if such input is requested, How will the input be collected?
AI EO also envisions AI as an important tool for national power. By explicitly linking AI innovation to economic prosperity and national security, AI EO will ensure that future federal AI strategies will integrate technological advances with broader national goals on economic policy and international competitiveness It suggests that there is a possibility.
Industry stakeholders and legal experts should consider monitoring the Federal Register and related agency websites for future notices regarding developments related to existing regulations resulting from AI EO.
The most pressing changes appear to come from the Office of Management and Budget, which only takes two months to modify the AI guidance. Beyond that, there may be some opportunities for public opinion as the administration drafts AI action plans and institutions implement new directives for AI EO.
The extent to which AI EO reconstructs the landscape of regulated AI is uncertain, but its publication indicates that there may be changes in regulatory attitudes that take place in public forums.
This article is based on Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc, publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax. Or it does not necessarily reflect the opinions of its owner.
Author information
Nicholas Martin and Andrew (AJ) Tibet are shareholders of Greenberg Traurig.
Writing for us: Author’s Guidelines
