US AI policy

Federal civilian agencies and their suppliers cannot deploy or retain DeepSeek products or third-party services built on them in government IT systems.

Companies serving or deploying systems within DHS cannot use DeepSeek models.

Federal civilian agencies using DeepSeek models or services must stop and switch to alternatives.

The designated entities have US assets frozen and are barred from any transactions with US persons, cutting off funding and partnership channels immediately

Federal civilian agencies must stop procuring and using DeepSeek AI products and services, with existing tools and contracts affected

Vendors serving US federal agencies must audit and remove DeepSeek technology or derivative components integrated in their products.- Third-party services built on DeepSeek (fine-tuned, distilled, or packaged) are also covered; companies with US government business need to plan model replacement.- Chinese AI models face tighter access to the US federal market; DeepSeek-dependent go-to-market strategies need reassessment.

Companies selling to US federal agencies or their suppliers must verify their tech stack contains no DeepSeek or derivative models.

Vendors and integrators in federal civilian supply chains must identify and replace products built on DeepSeek.- Companies building on Chinese open-source models face procurement restrictions when targeting US government customers.- Tightening two-way controls between the US and China raises compliance scrutiny for Chinese AI firms operating in the US and vendors with ASEAN footprints.

Procurement of DeepSeek-origin or DeepSeek-architecture-based hardware, software, and services to U.S. federal civilian agencies is prohibited, blocking related contracts immediately.

Companies selling to US federal agencies must confirm their supply chains contain no DeepSeek components or risk losing procurement eligibility

Companies selling to the U.S. government or federal contracting ecosystem must audit and remove components based on DeepSeek implementations or face contract compliance risk.- Third-party vendors fine-tuning or building on DeepSeek models are explicitly covered; derivative implementations cannot be used for federal work.- Firms in the China-U.S. AI supply chain must assess U.S. market access restrictions and adjust their tech stack to meet procurement requirements.

Federal software vendors must audit which open-weight models are embedded in products sold to civilian agencies and demonstrate supply chain compliance to keep contracts

U.S. AI companies must adjust model release processes to ensure U.S. agencies review first

AI companies must adjust model release processes to ensure U.S. government gets priority testing access

Obligations: Data center operators must increase community participation in project approvals and cannot use confidentiality agreements. They must also comply with stricter environmental and energy efficiency standards. • Opportunities: Data centers investing in clean energy may receive priority for grid access. • Deadlines: The framework includes immediate administrative measures and proposed legislation for the 2027 state legislature.

Obligations: AI companies may face legal scrutiny and potential penalties if found to have coordinated to limit AI development speed, violating antitrust laws. • Opportunities: The case highlights the importance of transparent communication and compliance with antitrust regulations in the AI sector. • Deadlines: The court case is ongoing, with the possibility of a collective class-action suit being certified, which could impact the companies' operations and public perception.

Must equip AI models with 'kill switch' functionality and establish independent auditors; - Must collaborate with the expert panel to provide recommendations within two months; - Must comply with California's AI safety regulations, facing compliance risks otherwise.

Obligations: AI companies may face increased regulatory scrutiny and potential legal action over data usage and its impact on news publishers. • Opportunities: Companies may need to develop more transparent data practices and collaborate with news organizations to mitigate negative impacts. • Deadlines: The FTC consultation period is open for public comments until a specified date, after which the agency will consider feedback before potentially adopting new guidelines.

Obligations: AI companies operating in California may be subject to new regulatory requirements, including potential mandatory security audits by independent third parties. • Opportunities: Companies may gain clarity in the regulatory framework for AI safety, potentially reducing uncertainty. • Deadlines: Companies should prepare for the upcoming two-month timeline for the expert panel to submit its recommendations and the subsequent legislative process.

Obligations: US AI companies may face increased scrutiny and potential regulatory constraints on their development speed.

Obligations: Companies proposing data center projects in San Jose must undergo a more rigorous public review process and provide detailed disclosures on energy consumption, water usage, and environmental impact assessments. • Opportunities: Companies that can demonstrate responsible development and community benefits may gain public support and approval for their projects. • Deadlines: The city is currently consulting the public, and while no specific deadline is mentioned, companies must align with the city's proposed review framework before project approval.

OpenAI will adjust its R&D strategy to prioritize safety assessments, potentially slowing down the iteration of frontier technologies.

Obligations: Frontier AI developers must comply with consistent safety requirements under a federal framework and undergo independent audits. • Opportunities: Establishing unified safety standards and collaborative frameworks can enhance the safety of AI development and boost industry confidence. • Deadlines: The call for immediate action is made, but specific regulations and frameworks have not yet been issued.

Obligations: AI companies, particularly those in the US, are under pressure to demonstrate responsible development and transparency regarding their AI models.

Companies must master their proprietary tacit knowledge to build continuous learning loops and reduce reliance on single model vendors.

Companies must ensure their AI research aligns with the principles of human control and benefit for humanity, avoiding pursuits of meaningless or harmful superintelligence. • Companies should retain control over their unique knowledge and build autonomous continuous learning loops, not becoming dependent on any single model provider. • Microsoft will publish a 'Code of Conduct' for public consultation, providing clear guidance for the industry.

Obligations: AI data center operators may be subject to new environmental health regulations if the plan is adopted, requiring compliance with stricter air quality standards. • Opportunities: Companies investing in AI data centers in the US could gain from a streamlined regulatory process if the plan is implemented. • Deadlines: The plan's adoption hinges on the president's decision, with no specific timeline mentioned in the report.

Obligations: Recipients must publicly disclose research findings on AI risks to regulators and the public. • Opportunities: Grants provide resources for AI safety research, potentially accelerating safer AI development. • Deadlines: Recipients must submit quarterly progress reports and final research outcomes within 18 months of grant approval.

Obligations: AI companies may be required to embed auditors and adhere to shared safety standards.

Tech companies must take higher responsibility, needing to strengthen content moderation and risk control to avoid child harm from negligence• Violations will face high fines, increasing compliance costs and risks• Companies must immediately assess existing systems to ensure compliance with the new regulations after the law takes effect