Just over a month ahead of the 250th Independence Day of the United States (U.S.), President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order (the Order) setting forth the federal government’s stance on acceptable practices in artificial intelligence (AI) innovation and cybersecurity and commanding several agencies to action toward benchmark and specification development. Days later, a bipartisan group of Representatives from the Energy and Commerce Committee released a working draft of the Great American Artificial Intelligence Act of 2026 (the Bill), proposing a federal framework for structured U.S. AI governance. Both aim to promote AI innovation while addressing security risks, but they deviate sharply on regulation style.

The Order emphasizes reducing regulatory barriers to accelerate AI adoption across government and industry. It staunchly states that the government will not require preclearance or permits for AI model development or distribution and reiterates that the Government does not intend to formally regulate the “development, publication, release, or distribution of new AI models […].” Conversely, the Bill proposes direct federal regulation of frontier AI models, establishes a new federal institution, the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI), to develop standards and monitor the industry, and supports state-level regulation of AI deployment based on stated concern over the threats posed by AI to U.S. national security, safety, and workers. Both the Order and the Bill grapple with balancing independence for the AI industry to hopefully spark innovation with designing a nimble infrastructure, still sturdy enough to run interference when models sprout negative outputs.

Aims.

The Order sets three goals: 1) modernizing government and private-sector information systems against cyber threats; 2) protecting American ingenuity and intellectual property from foreign adversaries; and 3) cultivating America’s advanced AI capabilities. With two of three goals focused on innovation, the Order affirms that no mandatory preclearance or permits will be required from AI model development to distribution enduing industry designers minimal hurdles to expand and improve upon AI tool adoption nationwide.

The Bill focuses on four areas: 1) transparency in AI development and use, 2) education and workforce readiness, 3) cybersecurity, and 4) research, development, and international cooperation. Under Title I, frontier developers with over $500 million in revenue would be required to publish risk assessment procedures, report critical safety incidents to CAISI within a span of days (15) or hours (24) depending on severity, and face significant fines for noncompliance. The Bill would also create independent verification organizations (IVOs) under CAISI to audit frontier developers’ compliance, anti-retaliation protections for whistleblowers, fraud deterrence measures, free speech research studies, and the federalization of AI model development regulations.

Titles III and IV of the Bill address cybersecurity, collaboration, and research. Title III of would extend company-to-company cybersecurity information sharing (outside of antitrust concerns), provide grants for open-source software security, and require reporting on AI model security protocols. Title IV would establish collaborative testbed programs between government and private-sector labs, formally create the National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource (NAIRR), require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the use of liquid cooling for AI data centers, and direct federal engagement in developing international AI technical standards.

Assignments.

The Order directs Cabinet members across multiple departments to complete specific tasks within 30 to 60 days. Within 30 days, several agencies must act to prioritize the cyber defense of government information systems, expand AI-enabled cybersecurity tools, and facilitate access to cybersecurity resources for critical infrastructure operators, including rural hospitals. Notably, the Secretary of the Treasury is directed to form an AI cybersecurity clearinghouse in voluntary collaboration with the AI industry to identify and address software vulnerabilities and the OMB Director must assess whether existing federal grant programs have available funding for AI vulnerability detection.          

Within 60 days, the Office of Personnel Management must expand hiring pathways for cybersecurity specialists, and a multi-agency team led by the Secretary of the Treasury must develop a process for designating frontier AI models and creating a framework for developers to engage directly with the government on model development. Separately, the Attorney General is directed to prioritize the enforcement of federal criminal laws — covering identity theft, computer fraud, and wire fraud — against anyone who uses AI to illegally access or damage computer systems.

Following the format of the Order, the Bill instructs the National Science Foundation (NSF) Director to support AI-focused education initiatives, create AI scholarships and fellowships, and teacher training. Under the Bill, the Secretary of Labor would collect workforce data on AI adoption, establish an AI Workforce Research Hub, and report to Congress within two years on how this data will inform grant evaluations. States are not completely unburdened. States receiving certain federal workforce funds would be required to consider AI-related forecasts when updating their workforce planning for five years after enactment.

Ascertainments.

The Order provides long-awaited signaling from the federal government: AI innovation is a priority, and the administration intends to work with — not against — the industry. The Bill, while still a working draft that has not yet been formally introduced, offers early insight into bipartisan thinking on AI governance. Together, they confirm three realities: (1) AI capabilities have advanced to the point that both government and industry must respond, (2) powerful AI tools require meaningful security safeguards, and (3) the federal government intends to collaborate with the AI industry rather than impose top-down mandates.

What This Means for You.

Healthcare systems and corporate organizations using or developing AI tools should consider taking the following steps now:

• Form internal AI governance procedures. Establish clear policies for how your organization develops, deploys, and monitors AI tools, including accountability structures and risk management protocols.
• Consider voluntary audits. Both the Order and the Bill signal that government agencies will be engaging with AI developers on model assessments. Proactively reviewing your AI systems — particularly for cybersecurity vulnerabilities and bias — positions your organization favorably.
• Identify applicable grants and reporting obligations. The Order directs agencies to assess existing federal grant programs for AI-related funding, and the Bill would impose reporting requirements on larger developers. Determine whether your organization qualifies for available resources or would be subject to new obligations.
• Comment on the proposed Bill. The Great American AI Act is still a working draft. Organizations affected by AI regulation, including hospitals, data centers, and technology companies, should consider submitting comments to ensure their operational realities are reflected in the final legislation.

Sources:

1. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/06/promoting-advanced-artificial-intelligence-innovation-and-security/
2. https://www.politico.com/2026/06/04/obernolte-trahan-ai-draft?shem=rimspwouoe,
3. https://trahan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/gaaia_discussion_draft_section-by-section.pdf

**While this bulletin does not provide legal advice, Nelson Mullins has an experienced team of attorneys and policy professionals prepared to assist organizations and individuals with questions or in need of professional guidance regarding AI regulations and tools.