Over at Lawfare I have a new piece up entitled “The Many Open Questions About the Trump Administration’s New De Facto AI Model Licensing System.” This is well time as Protect Democracy’s lawsuit got the administration to agree to release the AI framework by October 30th.
This is my first time writing for Lawfare so special shoutout to their team including Kate Klonick, Kevin Frazier, Tyler McBrien, Allegra Hill, and Amy Marks for sticking with me through multiple drafts of this 3,500 word piece.
Also, special thanks to President Trump for renaming AI to “Super Intelligence” via EO and forcing the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI) to rebrand as the Center for Advancing Innovation and Standards for Super Intelligence (CAISSI) forcing me to rewrite random parts of the piece to the new agency name/acronym.
This is a follow up to my August CAP piece “The Trump Administration Has Created a De Facto Licensing System for Frontier AI Models.” I wrote the August piece because I was annoyed everyone seemed to glossing over the fact we had a secret de facto licensing system after a June AI EO that said it would never have any pre-release requirements or licensing. I tried to sum up what had happened over the last few months here and how much we didn’t know about the Trump admin’s AI framework:
The Trump administration’s AI framework secretly defines the covered models, obtains them before release for a purpose that is not defined in the June AI EO, and restricts their first recipients. The Trump administration has also shown its willingness to stretch existing authorities to control or reverse distribution of frontier AI models until its concerns are satisfied. While no formal procedures have publicly been released, the Trump administration’s actions and secrecy have nonetheless resulted in a licensing regime by pairing so-called voluntary standards with clear threats of unprecedented enforcement action, creating an expectation of preclearance. Most fundamentally, by keeping the voluntary AI framework secret, the public does not know what “voluntary” means. It could mean an AI developer can agree to the AI framework voluntarily but then is required to explicitly implement the government’s requests. It could mean an AI developer has the ability to agree to or refuse any requests from the government to change the developer’s covered frontier models. Or it could mean an AI developer can choose to opt a specific model into the framework if the developer feels the model meets the covered model definition (or it could withhold the model from the framework, if the model does not meet the definition).
In other words, President Trump and his administration have assumed sole discretion over the release of U.S. frontier AI models, without any specific existing statutory authority or authorization from Congress. This matters because frontier AI models could soon be the world’s most powerful national security and economic tools, if they are not already, and their release or restriction can now make or break companies and soon possibly even countries. Keeping the AI framework secret is possibly the worst scenario for AI safety and transparency.
To give you a sense of how absurd this secret AI framework is, here are titles of the nine open questions I explore:
What AI Models Are Covered by the EO and AI Framework?
How Does an AI Developer Join the AI Framework?
Will New Companies Be Forced to Sign a CAISSI Agreement? Some Other AI Framework? Both? Neither?
Do Developers Subject to the AI Framework Have Access to It?
What Happens to a Pre-release Frontier Model Submission to the Government?
Who Gets to Name the “Trusted Partners”?
Does the AI Framework Restrict Sharing Models With Foreign Governments?
When a Model Is Reviewed Under the AI Framework, Will the Government Say Anything?
Will Compliance With the AI Framework Save an AI Model From the Fate of Mythos?
My favorite is absolutely “Do Developers Subject to the AI Framework Have Access to It?” based what I heard anecdotally and this insane reporting by Axios :
In September, Axios reported that “the White House then presented the framework in an early-August meeting but did not allow attendees to scan or take pictures of the document” and that “the select industry players looped into the process also are essentially relying on memory.” This reporting implies not only that the voluntary agreement is being withheld from the public, but even those who agree to it or are subject to it are not allowed to keep a copy for reference. If so, that would be a stunning fact and the opposite of a system based on the rule of law.
In the few days since I finalized the piece some other things have happened the even further muddied the water and probably would’ve required further updates. As I noted in a tweet thread here, for example, the White House Accord on Super Intelligence, how exactly does it interact with the AI framework? This seems focused on internal models being trained so maybe it’s separate from the AI framework that focuses on frontier models ahead of being released to the public?
Meta released a new closed model this week, Muse Wonder, which they claim benchmarks above Fable 5.1 and GPT 6 astra. The Trump admin was trying to pressure Meta to sign a CAISSI pre-release testing agreement and they had refused and as I noted “a lack of a voluntary agreement with the U.S. government could challenge the Trump administration’s de facto licensing system if Meta releases an open or closed model that would qualify as a covered frontier model.” You’ll note the the White House Accord on Super Intelligence doesn’t say anything about the government doing anything.
Or there’s the new Super Intelligence Force (SIF) created by a Trump Truth Social post (not currently on the White House website because why would it be) chaired by the Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton.
One of the SIF Vice-Chairs, OPM Director Scott Kupor, a former a16z partner, gave this interview to Politico:
“The task force’s responsibilities will focus less on assessing frontier AI capabilities and more on establishing standards for developers based on existing criminal and civil laws, Kupor said. [. . .]
Kupor described law enforcement coordination as one part of the task force’s broader safety agenda. It will work to audit pledges made through the recent AI accords; conduct a full risk assessment of the technology; and ensure the government has the resources to respond if something goes wrong with a model. [. . .]
The vice chair’s comments suggest a hands-on approach to AI oversight, even though the task force’s charter does not include a push for new legislation which is a priority for many AI safety advocates.
SIF’s hands-on approach was exemplified by their statement to Axios in response to Anthropic disclosing their internal models had interacted with government websites:
“This notification and remediation process is not optional,” White House Super Intelligence Force leaders said in a statement shared exclusively with Axios. “It is a critical national security obligation.” [ . . .]
“SI companies must immediately disclose incidents involving their models and follow with swift, decisive action to remedy any and all harm,” the SI Force statement said.”
It is, again, not clear what if any statutory authority the administration is using to require this, since reports indicate that the AI framework has no reporting requirements.
Anyway, as always with this administration, who knows if it intentional, corrupt, inept, or some combination of all three. Which is a bummer, to say it lightly, during a critical time. As I closed my Lawfare piece:
But it is worth stepping back and asking, What is the intent of the administration’s actions? The June AI EO was entitled “Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security.” A secret de facto licensing regime is possibly the worst way to promote AI innovation and security. The secrecy is counterproductive because it undermines any ability to assure the public of the safety or security of new AI models at a time of growing concern, particularly as the government appears to have the opportunity to misuse unreleased models for its own purpose. Keeping this framework secret does nothing to reassure the public, other AI developers, Congress, U.S. allies, or even the nation’s enemies.
Even when the Trump administration releases the AI framework, it would still be operating as a de facto licensing system. But at least it will be a de facto licensing system that the public can analyze and understand.
Read the whole piece on Lawfare, “The Many Open Questions About the Trump Administration’s New De Facto AI Model Licensing System.”