Loading story…
Sen. Marsha Blackburn released a discussion draft of the nearly 300-page "Trump America AI Act", proposing a federal framework for artificial intelligence that would impose a duty of care on AI developers, create new online platform obligations, and sunset protections for hosts of user-generated content. The draft is positioned as a national standard to replace the current patchwork of state AI rules and aligns with President Trump's call for federal legislation and opposition to state-by-state regulation.
In parallel, Colorado moved toward revising its 2024 AI law after a state working group published a new policy framework intended to resolve disputes between consumer advocates and the technology industry. The proposal would clarify disclosure requirements for high-stakes AI uses such as hiring, housing, and lending, require developers to provide information on data sources and system limitations, and shift liability so responsibility is assigned according to each party's role rather than placed on a single actor. Together, the developments show AI regulation accelerating on two separate tracks: a broad federal legislative push and a state effort to narrow and refine an existing law.
See the reporting duties and controls this puts on the clock.
16 events from the most recent confirmed update back to the earliest known activity.
The Trump administration was reported to be considering an executive order that would create a government review process for advanced AI models before public release, potentially involving agencies such as the NSA and ODNI. The proposal was reportedly driven by concerns about Anthropic's unreleased Mythos model, though a White House official said no executive order had been confirmed.
Michigan lawmakers considered House Bill 5899, introduced by State Rep. Jaime Greene, to establish a controlled generative AI pilot program for state agencies. The proposal would create a governing board to set standards on privacy, bias, and responsible AI use before any broader statewide deployment.
Reps. Ted Lieu and Jay Obernolte introduced the bipartisan American Leadership in AI Act, a broad package consolidating more than 20 prior AI proposals and task force recommendations. The bill covers standards, research infrastructure, federal governance and procurement, worker protections, deepfake defenses, and AI education, while adding accountability provisions for flawed or biased AI-driven government decisions.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong issued an advisory stating that organizations using AI remain subject to existing state laws, including civil rights, privacy, data security, consumer protection, and antitrust rules. The guidance applies to both public agencies and private companies and signals enforcement priorities despite the absence of a dedicated state AI law.
Tennessee lawmakers advanced the Artificial Intelligence Public Safety and Child Protection Transparency Act after amendments reportedly narrowed the bill following White House feedback. The measure would impose transparency and safety-plan requirements on large AI developers and certain widely used chatbots, with provisions focused on catastrophic risk and protections for minors.
The European Union's AI Act formally entered into force, marking a major regulatory milestone for AI governance in Europe. The reference also notes that compliance deadlines for high-risk systems were later delayed as policymakers weighed how to balance regulation with AI development.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order requiring AI companies that do business with the state to implement safety and privacy guardrails. The order aims to ensure state contractors adopt responsible AI policies, prevent misuse, and protect consumers' safety and privacy.
Tennessee officials said the state is moving from early AI experimentation to broader enterprise deployment, backed by a proposed $50 million investment in Gov. Bill Lee’s amended 2027 budget. The funding would support AI infrastructure, data management, governance, safety, accountability, and protection of citizens’ data as the state expands use of tools such as ChatGPT Enterprise.
The White House released a National Policy Framework for AI organized around seven pillars aimed at balancing consumer protections, economic competitiveness, and U.S. leadership. The framework supports measures including child protections, workforce development, regulatory sandboxes, and federal preemption of burdensome state AI laws, while opposing creation of a new federal AI regulator.
A March 2026 analysis highlighted Utah's approach to regulating AI in healthcare as a model for other states. The reference does not provide enough detail to identify a more specific underlying policy event.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn released a nearly 300-page discussion draft for a federal AI framework intended to create a national standard and reduce the patchwork of state AI laws. The proposal includes a duty of care for chatbot developers, new platform obligations, and a sunset of Section 230 protections two years after enactment.
A Colorado state working group released a framework aimed at revising the state's 2024 AI law, proposing clearer disclosure rules, developer transparency requirements, plain-language notices, and a shared liability model. Gov. Jared Polis praised the group's unanimous agreement, though lawmakers said passage was still uncertain.
The White House issued an executive order establishing a national AI policy framework aimed at preserving U.S. AI leadership and reducing burdensome state regulation. The order directed the Justice Department and Commerce Department to review and challenge certain state AI laws and called for recommendations toward a uniform federal framework that could preempt conflicting state rules.
New York signed the RAISE Act into law, creating transparency and safety requirements for advanced AI models, including disclosures about training data, safety plans, and safety incidents. The law is scheduled to take effect by January 2027.
After criticism from consumer advocates and the technology industry, Colorado's AI law was delayed to allow revisions. The delay set the stage for a state working group to develop changes.
Colorado enacted its 2024 AI Act, one of the first broad state laws governing high-risk AI systems used by businesses and government. The law later became the focus of criticism over its sweeping requirements.
See what this changes for your reporting obligations and which controls it puts on the clock.
25 references tracked. Mallory keeps watching after this page renders.
tomshardware.com
Open sourcestatescoop.com
Open sourcenextgov.com
Open sourcedatabreaches.net
Open sourcestatescoop.com
Open sourceblackburn.senate.gov
Open sourcewhitehouse.gov
Open sourceismg-cdn.nyc3.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com
Open sourceMap indicators from this story to your assets and identify affected systems in minutes.
Every observed campaign, victim, and pivot linked to actors named in this story.
Malware, exploits, and IOCs connected to the activity described here.
YARA, Sigma, and Snort rules deployed to your SIEM as soon as they’re published.
Get matching new stories delivered to your team as they break — not the next morning.
Ask questions about this story and take action on the answers.
Other stories Mallory is tracking that overlap on entities, sources, or topic labels.
U.S. lawmakers introduced and advanced multiple **artificial intelligence policy bills** spanning education, public awareness, and safety requirements. Proposed measures include the *Expanding AI Voices Act* to codify the National Science Foundation’s *ExpandAI* program and broaden AI education and workforce development access (including for minority-serving institutions, rural universities, and first-generation students), and the *Artificial Intelligence Public Awareness and Education Campaign Act* directing the Department of Commerce to run a public campaign on AI risks/benefits, individual rights, identifying AI-generated content, and AI’s prevalence in daily life. Separate legislation was also described that would require **age verification and protections for minors** using AI chatbots. In parallel, the House Foreign Affairs Committee advanced the **AI Overwatch Act**, which would shift greater authority over exports of high-performance, data center-class AI processors to Congress, expanding oversight beyond the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security. The proposal would codify performance thresholds that still allow certain lower-tier accelerators (e.g., Nvidia **H20** and AMD **MI308**) to ship to non-blacklisted entities in adversary nations without a license, while subjecting higher-performance parts (e.g., Nvidia **H200** and AMD **MI325X**) to export controls plus **congressional review/veto**; it would also terminate existing licenses and impose a temporary blanket denial pending submission of a new national security strategy.
Jul 12, 2026
A bipartisan discussion draft in the House, the **Great American Artificial Intelligence Act of 2026**, would create the first broad U.S. federal framework for regulating frontier AI developers such as OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, and Meta. The proposal would require large model developers to publish safety and governance frameworks, issue transparency and incident reports, assess catastrophic risks, and undergo semiannual independent audits or verification. The bill defines catastrophic risks to include mass-casualty harms, major property damage, cyberattacks, CBRN weapon assistance, and loss-of-control scenarios, while also formalizing the **Center for AI Standards and Innovation** and funding it at **$100 million annually** from fiscal 2027 through 2029. The draft would also block states for **three years** from specifically regulating AI model development, a provision that drew immediate criticism from opponents who say it could suppress stronger state protections even as it preserves generally applicable state laws and post-deployment oversight. Beyond model governance, the measure would extend the **Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act** through 2035, direct DHS to support small and rural critical infrastructure operators, fund open-source software maintainers using frontier models for vulnerability discovery and patching, and establish AI testbeds across federal labs and private partners to evaluate threats including autonomous offensive cyber capabilities and risks to critical infrastructure.
Jun 29, 2026
Governments, regulators, and major AI developers moved to formalize oversight of advanced AI systems as concerns grew that frontier and agentic models could accelerate cyberattacks, create liability exposure, and outpace existing governance. In the United States, **NIST** expanded work on AI security through its `AI Agent Standards Initiative`, the `Cyber AI Profile`, and the Commerce Department’s **Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI)**, while Google, Microsoft, xAI, OpenAI, and Anthropic agreed to voluntary pre-release model testing with the government. The White House debated a broader executive order after reports that models such as Anthropic’s **Mythos** and OpenAI’s cyber-focused systems could rapidly identify vulnerabilities and support complex offensive operations; the final order reportedly shortened the review window and paired model access with an AI cybersecurity clearinghouse and vulnerability-sharing measures for critical infrastructure defenders. At the same time, Europe and U.S. states advanced a patchwork of AI governance rules that mixed delayed enforcement with tougher operational expectations. The EU agreed to simplify parts of the **AI Act**, delaying some high-risk obligations while banning nudification tools and preserving strong powers for the Commission’s AI Office over general-purpose AI, even as guidance on high-risk classification and logging requirements continued to emerge. States including Illinois, Utah, Maryland, and San Jose expanded governance-first programs through chief AI officers, sandboxes, incident-investigation frameworks, red teaming, and procurement controls, while insurers, auditors, and legal experts warned that **AI-washing**, weak board oversight, poor logging, and inadequate vendor controls are increasing D&O, regulatory, and tort risk. Across policy, industry, and academia, the direction of travel was toward stronger **auditing, verification, incident reporting, and lifecycle governance** rather than reliance on voluntary model promises alone.
Aug 1, 2026