Members of Congress are pressing the Trump administration to expand the federal government’s role in securing artificial intelligence, wanting new safety standards and regulations, independent testing of models and more “aggressive” use of AI for defensive cybersecurity purposes.

In a letter, Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said that multiple incidents of frontier AI models escaping sandbox protections and breaching real companies, organizations and governments necessitate a stronger federal role in regulating the technology.

Recent revelations that hundreds, and possibly “tens of thousands,” of such incidents may have occurred for months without OpenAI’s staff detecting them makes the need for federal intervention even more urgent, the senators argued.

“These incidents come as AI systems are becoming dramatically more capable at discovering software vulnerabilities, writing and executing code, using digital tools, and operating autonomously,” the senators wrote.

The letter, addressed to Jay Clayton, director of national intelligence and new White House “AI czar” and Michael Kratsios, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, urges the federal government “to bring its full capacities to bear on this challenge, building a coordinated national response around standards, testing, auditing, and defensive AI.”

The Center for Advancing Innovation and Standards for Super Intelligence (CAISSI), housed within the Department of Commerce, has become the Trump administration’s main body for evaluating and testing AI models. In the letter, the senators are seeking to expand the center’s resources and mandate.

Under the Trump administration, testing of frontier models has been voluntary and focused on evaluating model capabilities, not restricting them. The administration has since said it has reached a safety testing framework with OpenAI, Anthropic and other AI companies to govern safety testing, but has not made the agreement public.

The senators call for CAISSI to spearhead the development of “technically grounded and measurable standards and risk management frameworks for advanced AI safety and security.” Those standards would address potential risks like cyberattacks, automated attacks on critical infrastructure and other threats.

“The standards should also address the security of the environments in which advanced AI systems are developed, trained, tested, and used internally, including protections against agents escaping testing environments, gaining unauthorized access to external systems, or taking actions beyond their intended permissions,” the senators wrote.

The letter argues the center and federal technology hubs like the National Institute of Standards and Technology should hire additional expertise in AI, cybersecurity, model evaluation and national security.

It also calls for a much broader community of independent and third-party testers. Currently, that testing is done almost entirely by AI companies and hand-selected auditors, like Model Evaluation and Threat Research (METR), Redwood Research and others.

Last month, Chris Painter, president of METR, told Congress that the firm’s investigation of the Hugging Face hacking incident was at the invitation of OpenAI, which tightly controls which organizations and testers get access to its unreleased models. While they are permitted to publicize some findings, such as those that relate to potentially catastrophic risks to humanity, researchers are otherwise restricted from discussing other parts of their investigation through nondisclosure agreements.

Additionally, Painter suggested that frontier companies are relying too heavily on their own technology, rather than technical controls, to monitor and restrain their models in testing.

“Because of the scale and speed at which AI agents are deployed, companies depend on AI monitoring and controls instead of human supervision, to prevent unwanted agent behavior,” Painter said. “That is, monitoring of AI is now in large part done by other AI systems.”

The senators call for CAISSI, national laboratories and the Department of Energy to become federal testing sites. There, the government would evaluate AI models for advanced cyber capabilities, biological or chemical threats, threats to critical infrastructure, sandbox evasion techniques and other autonomous rule-breaking behavior. They also want testing opened to universities, independent research organizations and “qualified third-party evaluators,” including private sector companies.

Other federal bodies, like the National Security Agency, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and National Science Foundation can help develop new standards and testbeds for AI tools used in defensive cybersecurity that can then be shared across government and with the public.

“The recent incidents make clear that the security infrastructure surrounding advanced AI must advance as quickly as the technology itself,” the senators wrote. “The United States has an opportunity to lead both sides of this challenge: building the standards, testing, and auditing infrastructure needed for increasingly powerful AI, while harnessing those same capabilities to make American networks harder to attack.”

You can read the full letter here.

The post Senators press Trump admin to rally federal government around AI safety, security  appeared first on CyberScoop.

A China-aligned cyber espionage group targeted U.S. artificial intelligence policy experts through phishing emails that impersonated prominent officials, economists and an employee of AI company Anthropic, according to research released Thursday by Proofpoint.

The campaigns, which the cybersecurity company attributed to a group it calls TA419, sought access to cloud accounts held by people at think tanks, universities and law firms. The activity comes amid growing U.S.-China competition over AI development, export controls, semiconductor supply chains and military uses of the technology.

Proofpoint said the group began a campaign in July by impersonating Lynne Parker, a former principal deputy director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and economist and foreign policy expert Heidi Crebo-Rediker. The emails invited recipients to join a supposed AI policy advisory committee or contribute to a report on AI export controls and supply chains.

The initial messages did not immediately request passwords or direct recipients to a sign-in page. Instead, they appeared designed to begin a conversation and establish trust. After a target replied, the group sent a shortened link said to contain more information.

The link redirected recipients through several websites before leading to a false Microsoft OneDrive sign-in page. Proofpoint said the setup was intended to capture account credentials and active browser sessions.

The firm described the operation as an adversary-in-the-middle phishing attack. In such attacks, the victim interacts with genuine Microsoft infrastructure during part of the process, looking and behaving like a legitimate sign-in. The person may enter a password, complete a multifactor authentication prompt and pass access checks while the attacker captures the session information created by the login.

Proofpoint said TA419 used a modified version of an open-source phishing tool known as Frameless BitB. The tool creates a false browser window within a webpage, imitating a familiar sign-in prompt. In this case, it was used to present a fake Microsoft login window over a page that resembled a OneDrive document-sharing site.

Proofpoint also identified a February campaign in which the same group impersonated a senior Anthropic employee. That message asked an AI policy analyst at a U.S. think tank for feedback on the military’s use of Anthropic’s Claude AI models, which was a highly controversial topic at time.

The report did not identify victims or state whether any accounts were compromised.

Proofpoint said TA419 has targeted individuals connected to U.S. and Japanese think tanks, defense contractors, universities and law firms since at least April 2025. Its interest in AI policy, the firm said, appears to extend an existing focus on defense, national security, energy, international relations and foreign policy. The group also registered domains resembling real organizations, including the Heritage Foundation, the World Economic Forum and the Japan-Taiwan Exchange Association.

The report does not directly link the activity to the Chinese government. China has repeatedly denied conducting cyber espionage, while accusing the United States of cyber operations against Chinese interests.

The White House, along with several AI companies, have also accused China of distilling U.S. models in order to power open-weight models run by Chinese companies.

Indicators of compromise can be found on Proofpoint’s website.

The post AI policy circles targeted in China-linked phishing operation appeared first on CyberScoop.

America leads the world in artificial intelligence. As it should. But tech leaders keep warning, with alarming frequency, that we are at risk of losing control.

President Donald Trump has called for an AI czar and an “AI Force.” The details remain unclear, but the announcement underscores something fundamental. A technology this consequential demands clear leadership, accountability and action inside the U.S. government. The question now is what that leadership should do.

That question became more urgent last week when Google disclosed that its Gemini AI model gained unauthorized access to three real companies during testing. The incidents follow similar disclosures involving models from Anthropic, OpenAI and Meta. While there has been a lot of discussion on if AI is spinning beyond human control, what these episodes factually demonstrate that powerful AI systems can take consequential actions developers never anticipated or designed for.

The answer isn’t to retreat from AI leadership. It’s to lead—and simultaneously build the safeguards we need to stay in control. The promise of AI is enormous. It is already expanding access to information, improving productivity and creating opportunities across the economy. But so are the stakes, especially for the digital systems underlying everything we rely on as a society: energy, water, telecommunications, transportation, finance and more.

Take energy as an example: many U.S. utilities are using AI tools and predictive analytics to give plant personnel early warning of equipment problems. Yet AI agents with authority to change equipment settings or take systems offline could themselves fail, exceed their intended authority or be manipulated by adversaries. In extreme cases, the lack of control doesn’t just mean the power goes out, it means we’ve lost the ability to get the lights, heat and telecom systems back online.

At Auburn University’s McCrary Institute, we focus on cybersecurity threats to our nation’s critical infrastructure. Experience has taught us that warnings accomplish little unless someone has the authority, resources and responsibility to act. The time to act is now.

Whether that responsibility ultimately sits with an AI czar, an “AI Force,” existing agencies, or some combination of the three matters less than the mission. A new title or organization will accomplish little without clear objectives, authorities and accountability.

We propose an AI Assurance Compact – a framework for action among the makers of AI models, government, and the owners and operators of our nation’s most critical digital systems. The goal is to ensure that America leads the development of AI while ensuring that we can credibly manage its power and risk.

This compact is built around three principles: capability, that ensures the U.S. remains AI dominant; control, through constant testing and clear accountability; and continuity that ensures essential services can stay operational and recover when AI fails, is compromised, or must be disconnected.

When demonstrated risks outpace available safeguards, frontier development should be deliberately paced, including temporary limits or pauses where risks cannot be adequately controlled.

To their credit, leading American developers have responded to emerging risks with transparency, stronger safeguards and, in some cases, pauses or limits on development and access. But we cannot assume that voluntary restraint alone will protect the public interest or America’s strategic advantage. The country’s competitive landscape demands systemic discipline.

Nor can we assume the next warning will come from an American company. If a Chinese frontier developer reaches a dangerous capability first, American security cannot count on predictable warnings, transparency or restraint.

America’s strategic competitors are all-in on AI. Anthropic reported malicious actors using AI in cyber operations, surveillance and weapons-related work. Keeping a human in the loop is not sufficient when that human intends to attack us.

The Compact would prompt action by:

Requiring ongoing, embedded independent evaluation at frontier labs, covering training pipelines, internal use and deployment. Evaluators need employee-comparable access to relevant systems and evidence, protected reporting channels and freedom to publish safety findings, with narrow confidentiality safeguards. High-consequence systems should pass independent review before release, with renewed scrutiny after material changes. NIST can establish common criteria with sector agencies. Requirements should follow risk, regardless of a model’s origin or whether its weights are open or closed.

Establish enforceable checkpoints when capabilities materially exceed demonstrated safeguards. Developers should present a credible safety case before proceeding with high-consequence activities; uncertainty cannot automatically count as permission. Where risks cannot be adequately controlled, designated authorities must be able to require limits or temporary suspension until independently reviewed evidence supports proceeding.

Require rapid reporting of serious incidents to appropriate government authorities and affected organizations, along with preservation of evidence. Providers should share actionable warnings with one another and affected defenders so an actor removed from one service cannot simply continue elsewhere unnoticed.

AI in essential services needs rigorous guardrails before deployment. Operators need evidence specific to the task and operating environment, enforceable limits on authority, notice of material changes and tested fallback arrangements. Government, independent labs and operators should test failures across interconnected systems. Smaller operators need shared testing, technical assistance and recovery expertise—not another unfunded mandate. A backup plan should count only when it works under stress.

Finally, whatever structure the White House ultimately chooses should execute on the Compact’s principles by driving implementation, setting deadlines and ensuring that infrastructure operators and public-interest representatives have a seat at the table.

Internationally, the United States should explore crisis-communication mechanisms with other major AI powers, including strategic competitors, to reduce the risk that a serious AI-related incident escalates through miscalculation. If that ultimately means some version of a “red phone” for AI, so be it. Such mechanisms should reduce the risk of unintended escalation without creating new constraints on legitimate national security activities. America’s domestic safeguards and defensive investments cannot depend on agreement abroad.

No framework, or new government office, can guarantee control of whatever AI becomes. But clear leadership, accountability and tested safeguards can improve our ability to manage the risks.

America cannot win the AI race only to lose control of the systems on which our country depends. The President has called for action. The mission now should be clear. Preserve America’s AI advantage, maintain control and ensure that our essential systems continue to operate when technology fails, is compromised or must be disconnected.

Our nation’s most critical systems are already benefiting from the power of AI. They should. But pulling the plug on AI cannot mean pulling the plug on the community.

Frank Cilluffo is director of Auburn University’s McCrary Institute for Cyber & Critical Infrastructure Security and served as a special assistant to President George W. Bush following September 11. Nick Sellers is the institute’s associate director and chief operating officer and a former senior executive at Alabama Power and Southern Company.

The post The president has called for AI leadership. Here’s the mission. appeared first on CyberScoop.