On April 3, the White House Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) released two memoranda with AI guidance and requirements for federal agencies, Memorandum M-25-21 on Accelerating Federal Use of AI through Innovation, Governance, and Public Trust (“OMB AI Use Memo“) and Memorandum M-25-22 on Driving Efficient Acquisition of Artificial Intelligence in Government (“OMB AI Procurement Memo”).  According to the White House’s fact sheet, the OMB AI Use and AI Procurement Memos (collectively, the “new OMB AI Memos”), which rescind and replace OMB memos on AI use and procurement issued under President Biden’s Executive Order 14110 (“Biden OMB AI Memos”), shift U.S. AI policy to a “forward-leaning, pro-innovation, and pro-competition mindset” that will make agencies “more agile, cost-effective, and efficient.”  The new OMB AI Memos implement President Trump’s January 23 Executive Order 14179 on “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence” (the “AI EO”), which directs the OMB to revise the Biden OMB AI Memos to make them consistent with the AI EO’s policy of “sustain[ing] and enhance[ing] America’s global AI dominance.” 

Overall, the new OMB AI Memos build on the frameworks established under President Trump’s 2020 Executive Order 13960 on “Promoting the Use of Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence in the Federal Government” and the Biden OMB AI Memos.  This is consistent with the AI EO, which noted that the Administration would “revise” the Biden AI Memos “as necessary.”  At the same time, the new OMB AI Memos include some significant differences from the Biden OMB’s approach in the areas discussed below (as well as other areas).Continue Reading OMB Issues First Trump 2.0-Era Requirements for AI Use and Procurement by Federal Agencies

The “market” for AI contracting terms continues to evolve, and whilst there is no standardised approach (as much will depend on the use cases, technical features and commercial terms), a number of attempts have been made to put forward contracting models. One of the latest being from the EU’s Community of Practice on Public Procurement of AI, which published an updated version of its non-binding EU AI Model Contractual Clauses (“MCC-AI”) on March 5, 2025. The MCC-AI are template contractual clauses intended to be used by public organizations that procure AI systems developed by external suppliers.  An initial draft had been published in September 2023.  This latest version has been updated to align with the EU AI Act, which entered into force on August 1, 2024 but whose terms apply gradually in a staggered manner.  Two templates are available: one for public procurement of “high-risk” AI systems, and another for non-high-risk AI systems. A commentary, which provides guidance on how to use the MCC-AI, is also available.Continue Reading EU’s Community of Practice Publishes Updated AI Model Contractual Clauses

Today the White House released an executive summary of the policy reviews President Trump ordered in his America First Trade Policy (AFTP) memorandum, issued on January 20.  Although the full report to the President is nonpublic, according to the executive summary it contains twenty-four chapters, organized into three main pillars: (1) Addressing Unfair and Unbalanced Trade, (2) Economic and Trade Relations with the People’s Republic of China, and (3) Additional Economic Security measures, which includes reviews of export control programs, outbound investment, and other national security policies.

Several of these reviews directly affect the technology industry broadly.  Although the executive summary contains little specific policy detail on these key issues, it does provide an overview of the Administration’s findings and next steps:Continue Reading Agencies Deliver America First Trade Policy Recommendations to White House

Four Internet of Things (IoT) related tax relief provisions are due to expire on December 31, 2025.  Two bills were introduced in Brazil’s National Congress to extend these provisions and are currently in debate under a fast-track rule.  Companies that provide and implement IoT projects can engage congressional leaders to secure the bills’ approval.

Tax Relief Provisions

The Brazilian Internet of Things Act of 2020 reduced to zero four fees and contributions for companies implementing and operating IoT projects:

  • The Installation Oversight Fee (“TFI”), due when the authorization is granted to operate IoT stations;
  • The Operation Oversight Fee (“TFF”), due annually;
  • The Public Broadcasting Support Contribution (“CFRP”), due annually; and
  • The National Film Production Development Contribution (“Condecine”), due annually.

Some of these fees and contributions, as well as roaming-related restrictions to international IoT providers, are listed in the Brazil section of the Office of the United States Trade Representative 2024 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers.Continue Reading Brazil’s Internet of Things Tax Relief Due to Expire in 2025

On March 24, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing on the “Censorship Industrial Complex,” where senators and witnesses expressed divergent views on risks to First Amendment rights.  Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO), the Subcommittee Chair, began the hearing by warning that the “vast censorship enterprise that the Biden Administration built” has expanded into an “alliance of activists, academics, journalists, big tech companies, and federal bureaucrats” that uses “novel tools and technologies of the 21st century” to silence critics.  Senator Peter Welch (D-VT), the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, expressed skepticism about alleged censorship by the Biden Administration and social media companies, citing the Supreme Court’s 2024 opinion in Murthy v. Missouri, and accused the Trump Administration of causing “real suppression of free speech.”

The witnesses at the hearing, including law professors, journalists, and an attorney from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, expressed contrasting views on the state of free expression and risks of censorship.  Mollie Hemingway, the Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist, argued that federal and state governments “fund and promote censorship and blacklisting technology” to undermine free speech in coordination with universities, non-profit entities, and technology companies.  Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, and Benjamin Weingarten, an investigative journalist, raised similar censorship concerns, with Turley arguing that a “cottage industry of disinformation experts” had “monetized censorship” and adding that the EU’s Digital Services Act presents a “new, emerging threat” to First Amendment rights.Continue Reading Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Holds Hearing on the “Censorship Industrial Complex”

On March 18, the Joint California Policy Working Group on AI Frontier Models (the “Working Group”) released its draft report on the regulation of foundation models, with the aim of providing an “evidence-based foundation for AI policy decisions” in California that “ensure[s] these powerful technologies benefit society globally while reasonably managing emerging risks.”  The Working Group was established by California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) in September 2024, following his veto of California State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco)’s Safe & Secure Innovation for Frontier AI Models Act (SB 1047).  The Working Group builds on California’s partnership with Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley, established by Governor Newsom’s 2023 Executive Order on generative AI.

Noting that “foundation model capabilities have rapidly improved” since the veto of SB 1047 and that California’s “unique opportunity” to shape AI governance “may not remain open indefinitely,” the report assesses transparency, third-party risk assessment, and adverse event reporting requirements as key components for foundation model regulation.Continue Reading California Frontier AI Working Group Issues Report on Foundation Model Regulation

On March 12, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation advanced two nominations key to the Trump Administration’s technology policy: Mark Meador as a Commissioner for the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), and Michael Kratsios as Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (“OSTP”).  Both nominees previously had their nomination hearings in front of the Committee on February 25, described below.

Mark Meador

Meador started his career in the healthcare division of the FTC.  In his opening statement, he discussed the importance of the FTC in protecting consumers and free market competition. He specifically referenced the need to protect children in the digital environment and stated that the FTC should use its consumer protection powers to safeguard families.

During the nomination hearing, Meador faced questions about consumer protection enforcement mechanisms, “Big Tech” regulation, pharmacracy benefit managers (“PBMs”), antitrust concerns, and the agency’s direction under the new administration.Continue Reading Senate Commerce Committee Questions Trump Tech Nominees

On March 12, 2025, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Public Notice to announce it is seeking comment on whether any FCC rules, regulations or guidance documents should be removed due to the stated purpose of “alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens.”  The FCC opened the new “In Re: Delete, Delete, Delete” docket, GN Docket No. 25-133, to receive filings from interested parties.

This action follows a number of recent actions by the Trump Administration focused on deregulation, such as the “Executive Order on Implementing the President’s Department of Government Efficiency Cost Efficiency Initiative,” which established new restrictions on the federal contracting process.

The Public Notice requests that commenters consider the following policy factors when responding:

  • Cost-benefit considerations – what cost-benefit analysis should be undertaken by the Commission in determining whether the cost of a particular regulation exceeds the benefit it brings to society.   
  • Experience gained from the implementation of the rule – whether the application of a given rule, either as currently interpreted or otherwise, reasonably supports the conclusion that the rule is “unnecessary or inappropriate.”

Continue Reading FCC Announces “In Re: Delete, Delete, Delete” Docket in Support of Deregulatory Agenda

This is part of an ongoing series of Covington blogs on the AI policies, executive orders, and other actions of the Trump Administration.  The first blog summarized key actions taken in the first weeks of the Trump Administration, including the revocation of President Biden’s 2023 Executive Order 14110 on the “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of AI” and the release of President Trump’s Executive Order 14179 on “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence” (“AI EO”).  This blog describes actions on AI taken by the Trump Administration in February 2025.Continue Reading February 2025 AI Developments Under the Trump Administration

On Tuesday, March 11, 2025, in the first Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing of the 119th Congress, the Senate Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism held a hearing entitled “Ending the Scourge: The Need for the STOP CSAM Act.”  Subcommittee Chair Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), who convened the hearing, and Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-IL) announced in February that they intended to reintroduce the Strengthening Transparency and Obligations to Protect Children Suffering from Abuse and Mistreatment Act or “STOP CSAM Act”, a comprehensive bill that seeks to combat the online sexual exploitation of children.  First introduced in 2023, the Act did not receive a vote on the Senate floor last Congress, despite being unanimously advanced by the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

The STOP CSAM Act, as written in 2023, contains multiple provisions that would impose new requirements on online platforms.  The Act would:

  • Remove Section 230 immunity for civil claims against online platforms for CSAM-related harms;
  • Create a private right of action for victims to file civil lawsuits against online platforms that fail to timely remove CSAM material;
  • Create a Child Online Protection Board at the Federal Trade Commission that would be responsible for enforcing the removal of CSAM material and related images and authorized to fine platforms that fail to comply;
  • Remove technology companies’ discretion as to whether to report planned or imminent child sexual exploitation offenses of which the provider has actual knowledge;
  • Require that online platforms include certain additional information in NCMEC CyberTipline reports; and
  • Mandate that certain online platforms issue annual transparency reports related to child protection efforts.

Continue Reading Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Holds Hearing on the STOP CSAM Act