United States — AI policy

The market-driven pole of the wiki’s governance map — and the clearest case of a major power declining a horizontal AI law. The US relies on sectoral + state-level rules and executive action that has swung deregulatory, in deliberate contrast to the eu-ai-act‘s rights-driven horizontal regime and China’s state-driven one.

The arc

• Biden Executive Order (Oct 2023) — required developers of the most capable models to share safety-test results with the government before release. Subsequently rescinded.
• Trump deregulatory turn (Dec 12 2025 EO) — directs agencies to build a “unified national approach” and to challenge state AI laws in court (a preemption-focused posture): a federal effort aimed not at regulating AI but at clearing regulation away.
• Sectoral + state patchwork — no federal horizontal law; finance/health/transport handle AI under existing sector rules, while California and Colorado pass piecemeal AI statutes — the fragmentation the Trump EO seeks to preempt.
• Security-lever regime (June 2026) — now named and repeated. Cutting against the deregulatory arc, the administration runs a frontier-model release gate under Executive Order 14409 (2 June 2026), which requires submitting new models 30 days before release. Two enforcement beats in two weeks: the Anthropic Fable 5 / Mythos 5 suspension (worldwide, over a contested jailbreak claim) and the GPT-5.6 access restriction (release limited to government-approved partners, approved customer-by-customer). Deregulating domestic conduct while pre-clearing frontier releases are not opposites here — they coexist, and EO 14409 makes the security posture standing policy, not an ad-hoc reach. (Model-by-model application is still heavily “reportedly”; the EO itself is verifiable.)

Where it sits on the wiki’s axes

• The fourth model. With the US paged, the spoke’s governance map is a clean four-way comparison of instrument philosophy: EU rights-driven horizontal-binding · China state-driven content-binding · US market-driven fragmented/deregulatory · Israel innovation-driven sectoral-soft (responsible-innovation). The US and Israel share the light-touch instinct, but for different reasons (preemptive deregulation vs. deliberate hub-strategy).
• Federal-vs-subnational tension. The US adds an axis the others lack: an internal preemption fight (federal deregulation vs. state statutes) — governance contested within a jurisdiction, not just across them.
• Convergence caveat holds. Even amid divergence on instruments, the US still references the oecd-ai-principles definitional layer the synthesis identifies as the shared substrate.

Related

eu-ai-act · china-ai-regulation · responsible-innovation · risk-based-regulation · nist-ai-rmf · export-controls-on-ai · eo-14409 · anthropic-export-ban-2026 · openai-gpt56-access-restriction · ai-governance