The Federal Trade Commission wants to start regulating ideological bias in AI systems and assert federal control over state laws. They’re getting an earful from opponents on all sides of the political spectrum.

In a proposed policy statement released last month, the FTC said it was considering treating ideological bias in AI systems as an “unfair and deceptive practice” under Section 5 of the FTC Act.

The commission argued that consumers have an expectation that AI systems will provide them with information free from bias or ideological manipulation. Defining such bias as an unfair or deceptive practice would potentially allow the commission to regulate training or inputs that power AI algorithms. How precisely the FTC would determine when ideological bias exists in these systems is not fully explained in the document. 

Additionally, the statement suggests that the FTC believes this regulatory authority supersedes state AI laws. It specifically mentions the Colorado AI Act, which calls for models to be subject to risk assessments, transparency disclosures and “bias audits” before release. State lawmakers are now seeking to delay or eliminate the audits before the law takes effect in 2027.

CyberScoop reviewed dozens of public comments criticizing  the FTC’s proposal. Even ideological allies raised two main concerns: first, that the proposal distracts from real questions about the federal government’s role in regulating AI deception; and second, that it opens a Pandora’s Box by enabling political censorship of AI model outputs.

Leah Siskind, a former White House digital official and deputy director of the AI Corps at the Department of Homeland Security, told CyberScoop that AI companies face legitimate questions about their obligations to consumers, particularly whether they must ensure their models provide accurate information and protect against deliberate manipulation. 

Siskind’s past research has focused on how authoritarian propaganda tends to be overrepresented in answers provided by large language models, in part due to governments’ intentional efforts to poison data ingested by AI systems.

“There is a really interesting debate here about bias and about accuracy in models and whether that’s deceptive or not… about how we counter disinformation that has been absorbed and is now being reflected by LLMs…but this is not addressing that at all,” said Siskind, now a senior AI fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Instead, Siskind said the FTC statement appears primarily concerned about a power struggle with states over AI regulation and “petty squabbles about which AI model is more woke than the other.” She’s skeptical that the policy statement’s cited legal authorities are on sound footing.

“The way I see it is that the FTC’s role is to police consumer protection violations, not regulating AI systems, and it seems like they’re trying to solve a lack of congressional AI regulation by stretching section 5 [of the FTC Act] well beyond its traditional role,” she said.

Additionally, the policy statement’s language and sourcing suggests that the FTC is concerned with certain kinds of ideological bias more than others.

Anthropic, which has clashed with the Trump administration over AI guardrails and military applications of their technology, shows up more than half a dozen times in footnotes, many which are framed as examples of ideological bias the FTC is seeking to stamp out.

By contrast, the statement ignores a direct example of an American AI company owner influencing their model’s ideology: Elon Musk and his xAI-owned Grok model. Musk has publicly admitted, often on his own website, to intervening when Grok’s responses upset him. These interventions have shaped Grok’s outputs on specific topics, including South African race relations and the term “MechaHitler,” where the model now reflects Musk’s personal views.

But neither Musk and xAI are mentioned in the document, while Grok appears in a footnote which cites an advertisement for Grok as “your truth-seeking AI companion for unfiltered answers with advanced capabilities in reasoning, coding, and visual processing.”

Criticism across the spectrum

The FTC received more than 300 comments on its proposal from trade associations, think tanks, individual experts and members of Congress. Most criticized it as ill-defined and vulnerable to politically-motivated censorship, while some supported stronger rules against bias in AI systems. 

The International Center for Law and Economics noted the statement “offers little practical guidance about how the Commission will apply its deception authority to AI” and also does little to address hard questions, like where AI providers may be exercising their own First Amendment-protected activities.

The statement’s “focus on ‘ideologically motivated distortions’ suggests that the Commission’s concerns extend beyond factual misrepresentations in marketing to speech that may receive the highest degree of First Amendment protection,” the ICLE wrote.

The America First Legal Foundation, a conservative non-profit founded by top White House adviser Stephen Miller, pressed the FTC to adopt the policy “in full,” claiming that frontier models from OpenAI and Anthropic “have been programmed to prioritize ideologically liberal and progressive values as though they are objective, neutral positions rooted in truth.”

The group also argues that regulating these models’ ideological output falls under the FTC’s legal authority, because a “reasonable consumer” would expect that a model advertised for its usefulness and reliability would not prioritize liberal, ideological views.

“A reasonable consumer, based on AI companies’ advertising choices, would not expect that an AI system will adopt overwhelmingly liberal positions, thereby skewing results, or adopt a moral framework that would prefer to annihilate the earth rather than utter a slur,” wrote Emily Percival, senior counsel for America First Legal.

However, comments from other conservative groups questioned that rationale. The R Street Foundation’s Spence Purnell and Adam Thierer wrote that “the consumer expectations rationale is typically used in cases where there is an omission of information that should have existed.”

“Given that most LLMs already have disclosure statements [for their outputs], it seems unlikely that the FTC could explicitly prove that consumers were deceived about a product,” Purnell and Thierer wrote.

Reps. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., and Michael Lawler, R-N.Y., urged the FTC to carve out civil rights-related work from their scrutiny, such as preventing models from discriminating against users based on race, religion, gender, age and other federally protected characteristics.

“AI companies must not falsify facts in the name of fairness, but they also must prevent discrimination, stereotypes, and unequal treatment,” Gottheimer and Lawler wrote. “We would appreciate understanding how the FTC intends to ensure that these efforts remain permissible under the final policy framework.”

But the most common concern shared across the political spectrum was that the FTC could establish a precedent allowing the Trump White House and future administrations to reshape AI systems to reflect their political views.

David Inserra, Jennifer Huddleston and Juan Londoño of the Cato Institute point out that the FTC statement is conflating two different issues: ideological bias in AI systems and factual deception in marketing. 

“In other words, the FTC is trying to judge AI models’ accuracy and performance—two largely subjective variables—in the same way it evaluates dietary supplements’ medical-benefit claims or users being charged fees without proper notice or consent,” they write. “This is an absurd comparison.”

The post The FTC wants to regulate AI for ideological bias  appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Trump administration executive order on artificial intelligence tried to strike the balance between responsible use, security and mutual benefit, all with an eye toward not making it regulatory in nature, National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross said Tuesday.

“Everyone is working towards the same goal in terms of protecting the country and securing our systems, and we are trying to ensure that defenders have this technology as quickly and at scale as possible, but there are obviously specific security concerns, and industry has been very sensitive to this as well,” Cairncross said at the Black Hat 2026 conference in Las Vegas.

The security concerns about AI have moved to the forefront of discussions about the technology after OpenAI models escaped a test environment to hack the company Hugging Face last month.

“The design of this is that when there is something that happens, when there is a breach, when there is an event, that that system, that network of connections can exist, adapt to that, and seek to remedy that as quickly as possible, so that form follows function rather than turning that upside down, and as usual with the government pen just proceeding in a vacuum,” Cairncross said.

The Trump administration has drawn criticism over whether it has struck the right balance on AI rules. Trump’s AI executive order notably got pulled just before its scheduled release, with the final version signed in June missing some aspects that had drawn industry opposition.

“What needs to be built is a flexible, adaptable structure that enables information sharing between industry and government, so we can guarantee that this technology benefits everyone it’s going to benefit, but is used responsibly and securely,” Cairncross said.

He said the administration is working with industry during implementation of the executive order.

“A regulatory regime would not only strangle growth, development, and innovation, and be enormously harmful to the industry, but it would be obsolete 48 hours after it was gone through whatever process it had gone through,” Cairncross said.

Open source will play a “vital” role in the U.S. spreading its vision for AI across the globe, he said.

“We are extremely interested in looking at ways to build U.S. open source, make it competitive, make it the preferential adoption by planet Earth,” Cairncross said. “We understand and appreciate the value to the ecosystem that it has, the innovation, the startups who rely on it, the leap forward it makes possible in ways that otherwise would never happen. And so I think it’s an incredibly thriving ecosystem in AI right now, and we are looking to do what we can to grow, foster, and push that U.S. open source model.” 

Speaking at the same conference, Nick Andersen, the acting director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, seconded Cairncross’s comments about AI executive order implementation. He touted the Gold Eagle clearinghouse as one example.

“Those are fantastic opportunities we have to really provide a unifying function around the way that we’re going to do AI-enabled vulnerability reporting and disclosure at scale in a way that we haven’t had to do before with some of our legacy platforms, and just continue to expand out those opportunities,” he said. “That access — to build off the director’s point earlier — to really enable that industry collaboration, that’s so key and critical to us as we move forward.”

Matt Kapko contributed reporting to this story.

Updated 8/5/2026: to include comments from Andersen.

The post National cyber director lays out White House plans to secure AI without writing new rules appeared first on CyberScoop.

Industry groups who spoke at town halls hosted by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency about a pending cyber incident notification regulation had a few consistent messages:

We want this to apply to fewer of us. We don’t want to report to you on as many incidents. We want to give you less information when we do. 

CISA last week published transcripts from the town halls, where the agency sought feedback on the delayed rule for the 2022 Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act — perhaps the most significant cyber legislation Congress has ever passed. That law required critical infrastructure owners to report major cyberattacks to the federal government within 72 hours, and ransomware payments within 24 hours.

The law was designed to let the feds share information about significant incidents more widely to prepare other would-be victims. CISA published a proposed rule on the law in 2024 to define terms like “covered cyber incident” and more, and industry groups have persistently registered their objections since then.

CISA missed the October 2025 deadline for finalizing the rule, then missed a May reset target date, and now the administration says the rule will be completed in September.

Some industry sources told CyberScoop they consider that unlikely. Most also haven’t received any indications from CISA about how much of the town hall feedback it intends to embrace, they said.

Companies, incidents, information 

Those town hall comments over the course of four June dates were often very direct.

“The rule includes too many companies,” said Grant MacIntyre, director of regulatory affairs and senior attorney at the Auto Care Association. CISA estimated that more than 300,000 entities will be subject to its requirements.

Some industries advocated for their removal entirely, such as two different groups representing elements of the insurance sector. Some sought to reduce the number affected within their sector, such as the Nuclear Energy Institute wanting the list cut down to those already subject to Nuclear Regulatory Commission cybersecurity reporting requirements.

While CISA wrote the regulation with the intention to avoid overburdening small businesses, some feared it wouldn’t work that way in practice.

“The current approach where an entity qualifies either by size or by sector effectively negates the intended limitation on small businesses,” said Douglas Leigh, vice president of legislative affairs for the Alliance for Chemical Distribution. “In chemical distribution, even small entities could be swept in under multiple cyber categories.”

Where the rule specifies what kind of data organizations should report in a major incident, CISA should “seek to collect the least amount of information possible in the easiest to report fashion to facilitate information accuracy and reporting speed,” said Samantha Burch, vice president of technology public policy at government affairs at AHIP, a health insurance industry trade association.

Many, for instance, argued the report should not include information on the affected entities’ security measures.

Others worried about what kind of incidents would trigger reporting requirements.

“My big concern is that you’re going to be asking us to report incidents on every time some foreign entity tickles our firewall, whether they do anything or not, if they just do a ping or a search,” said Tim Pospisil, chief security officer for Nebraska Public Power District. “And that could be extremely burdensome.”

Industry Expectations

One industry representative told CyberScoop that CISA’s willingness to hold town halls, combined with the Trump administration strategy emphasizing “common sense regulation,” was a good sign about where the rule might be heading.

‘They are not picking up on the Biden administration’s approach and tweaking it. They’re thinking, ‘What are the specific pieces of information we need during a cyber incident to help critical infrastructure companies respond?’” said Henry Young, senior director of policy for the Business Software Alliance. “In general, industry is optimistic that what we’ll end up with are a few of the most important pieces of information, so that in the emergency, companies can act quickly and actually respond to an incident rather than completing lots of paperwork.”

But multiple industry sources said they haven’t gotten many indications about CISA’s intentions. Nor are they optimistic CISA can meet the September target date in the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.

“It could slip,” one said. “But I think they’re going to try.”

That industry source said they’d like to see a proposal from CISA before it cements anything forever.

Another industry source said it’s hard to trust the September date given past CISA delays, some of which aren’t CISA’s fault, such as dealing with multiple government shutdowns. Some of the delays trace to the Trump administration, given the massive cuts to CISA’s personnel.

Congress is also getting impatient.

The House Appropriations Committee “is concerned about delays in publishing the final CIRCIA rule and urges CISA to finalize it promptly following stakeholder review and feedback,” the panel wrote in the committee report for its fiscal 2027 Department of Homeland Security spending bill.

It’s a much different world than when CISA began writing the rule, something the agency also has to take into account now.

“AI has fundamentally changed the playing field,” the source said. “When this was set up, we didn’t even have the first generation of ChatGPT. We’re now in a mythos class environment.” That’s changed “how quickly we can identify threats, mitigate them, the level of human intervention, potential machine engagement.”

While CISA might have good intentions, past interactions give cause for skepticism about how capable it is of working collaboratively with industry, the source said.

Another industry source said conversations with CISA suggest the agency will look to simplify the regulation to keep it smaller and narrower, then potentially build upon it later.

From CISA’s mouth

Nick Andersen, the acting director of CISA, talked about his overarching intentions with CIRCIA at the town halls.

“CISA does not view CIRCIA as simply a check-the-box compliance exercise,” Andersen said at one. “CIRCIA will enhance visibility into the cyberthreat landscape to enable a robust national early warning capability for critical infrastructure. By quickly reporting covered cyber incidents and ransom payments to CISA, we will be able to provide timely and actionable defensive and eviction measures to your network defenders.”

Asked by CyberScoop about next steps for CIRCIA, and how it might incorporate the industry feedback, a spokesperson provided a statement.

“CISA recognizes the importance of CIRCIA, however, multiple funding lapses impacted CISA’s ability to conduct rulemaking activity for CIRCIA. CISA continues to work on the final rule,” the spokesperson said, adding that 1,200 critical infrastructure stakeholders attended the town halls.  “CISA will continue to communicate updates on the CIRCIA rulemaking process and timeline through CISA.gov/CIRCIA and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs’ Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.”

The post Industry’s message on CIRCIA: Please ask us fewer questions about cyberattacks appeared first on CyberScoop.

Microsoft, along with more than two dozen tech companies, are pressing policymakers to support open-source AI systems and code across society, arguing that it will be a safer approach than attempting to restrict access or relying on a handful of closed, proprietary models.

The open letter, posted Friday, draws parallels to the software industry of the 1980s, when large businesses worried that open-source software code would cut into their business. While industry lost that battle, the end result was a vibrant ecosystem that now underpins much of the modern internet, government IT and even commercial software products.

It also created a “shared foundation of knowledge” that has fed countless future software projects and innovations.

“The United States now faces a similar choice with artificial intelligence,” the companies wrote. “Our AI leadership will be judged not by one frontier AI model, but by whether the United States builds a strong, open ecosystem that diffuses into every sector.”

Expanding access and support to open-source AI comes with meaningful security risk. Cybersecurity experts warn that one of the biggest beneficiaries of broadly available AI tools are  low-level criminals who until now lacked the technical expertise or resources to launch serious attacks.

Once a model is open weight, anyone can download it, customize it, strip it of any guardrails and use it for their own purposes. As open-source models have gotten better at creating deepfakes and other AI generated imagery, the danger of locally-customized CSAM and sexualized deepfakes could also grow.

But the letter argues that open-weight AI models are most beneficial to startups, universities, research labs and other small, ambitious organizations that can innovate and iterate the technology and make it more broadly useful to society.

“Open weights let every organization match the right model to the right job at the right cost, reserving frontier-scale capability for genuine frontier problems and running efficient specialized specialized models everywhere else,” The companies wrote. “That discipline is what will make AI economically sustainable as its use scales into the billions of everyday tasks.”

 For cybersecurity specifically, the letter argues that defenders armed with open-source AI will outpace attackers better than any closed model approach.

“In a world where cybersecurity attackers use advanced AI, defenders need access to models with comparable capabilities so they can detect, simulate, and respond to emerging threats,” the companies wrote. “Open models broaden defensive capability, increase transparency, and allow vulnerabilities to be discovered and remediated across many teams.”

Other notable companies signing the letter include Meta, Palantir, Perplexity, Mistral, NVIDIA, Mozilla, The Linux Foundation, Hugging Face, Dell Technologies and IBM.

US policymakers continue to grapple with balancing unrestrained support for the domestic AI industry and providing oversight and regulation of harms that result from their use.

The Trump administration has cycled through several frameworks since coming into office, first a laissez-faire approach within no restrictions, then an executive order creating a voluntary testing regime for industry, then the imposition of export controls on Anthropic’s Fable model and reportedly pressuring OpenAI to delay the release of their models out of cybersecurity concerns.

The letter comes as the Trump administration has reportedly considered an executive order that would restrict American access and availability to Chinese-made open-source models.

But the White House and US companies are trying to thread a needle in recognizing the overall benefits of an open source approach while being wary of doing anything that could potentially benefit their Chinese rivals.

Earlier this month the White House announced the creation of its Gold Eagle AI cybersecurity clearinghouse that would help coordinate government, private sector and civil society work finding and closing AI-discovered vulnerabilities. A big part of that effort, a senior White House official said, is supporting providers and maintainers of open-source AI tools.

The post Microsoft, tech companies throw weight behind spread of open-source AI appeared first on CyberScoop.

Seven out of 10 federal cyber regulations requiring written reports to federal agencies are duplicated elsewhere, a report from a government watchdog found in a report to Congress Wednesday.

And so far, efforts to de-conflict haven’t had much success, the report from the Government Accountability Office concluded.

At the request of two top lawmakers, the GAO examined federal cyber regulations at 37 agencies. It counted 80 out of 117 rules that “either contain the same kind of reporting requirement applicable to a sector or the same reporting requirement as at least one other regulation.”

The desire to harmonize those conflicting rules gathered steam under the Biden administration, as it undertook a more aggressive push to regulate cybersecurity than prior administrations. It has continued into the second Trump administration.

The GAO scrutinized regulations that required the private sector to report cybersecurity incidents, plans and reviews to federal agencies, as part of a study sought by House Homeland Security Chairman Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., and the top Democrat on the Senate counterpart to Garbarino’s panel, Gary Peters, D-Mich.

In some cases, a single critical infrastructure sector could have duplication with several agencies. For example, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has been working on a regulation stemming from the 2022 Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act (CIRCIA), which would require critical infrastructure owners and operators to report when they are the victims of major attacks or make ransomware payments.

Elements of the financial services sector might fall under one of 15 preexisting cybersecurity reporting rules, depending on the agency that has oversight, but they may also be subject to the pending CIRCIA rules, GAO noted.

A 2024 national security memorandum tasked the Office of the National Cyber Director and the Department of Homeland Security to harmonize conflicting regulations, and both agencies made some progress on those goals.

But the executive branch paused some of those efforts after Trump issued an executive order in March of last year while the administration conducted a study of the 2024 memo, a study that was still underway as of last month, according to the GAO.

As such, on harmonization, “many past federal efforts have experienced delays and made limited progress,” the GAO concluded in its report Wednesday, its latest on the topic. 

Congress has also looked at ways to streamline cybersecurity regulations.

GAO’s study was focused only on federal rules. BreachRx, a cyber incident response firm, published its own report Wednesday looking at major cyber incidents and how overlapping regulatory reporting obligations came into play, folding in regulations from states and other sources.

The post Most federal cybersecurity reporting rules are duplicative, study finds appeared first on CyberScoop.

After a year and a half spent downplaying calls for AI safety regulations, the Trump administration has sharply reversed course, embracing a level of government scrutiny of frontier AI systems before public release–a far stricter stance than the Biden administration took.

An executive order designed to be friendly to the AI industry was meant to let the federal government briefly review some new models on a voluntary basis.

When the Trump administration, suddenly and without much warning, slapped export controls on Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5 in response to private sector threat intelligence reporting, the U.S. AI industry officially entered its regulatory era.

But key questions and gaps remain. It’s not clear why the administration drew the line where it did, or whether they will move it again in the future.

While newer models like Mythos and OpenAI’s Daybreak do have stronger cybersecurity capabilities, the private sector reports the administration relied on describe capabilities already available in older commercial, open-source and Chinese models that nearly anyone can access.

CyberScoop spoke with current users of the latest frontier models, including OpenAI’s ChatGPT 5.5 and Fable 5, to learn more about what these models are currently capable of in offensive and defensive cybersecurity.

Cybersecurity experts and former government officials say the administration may be playing catch up on threats that have been building for years as it has more fully realized the national security implications of the technology.

Are the models breaking new ground or just breaking things? 

Users of Chat GPT 5.5, introduced this past April, and Fable 5 tell CyberScoop those models have been largely helpful to their work, even as they complained about high token usage and safety guardrails that hinder,  but don’t meaningfully prevent, defensive cyber tasks.

Eyal Webber Zvik, chief strategy officer at Cato Networks, a cloud and cybersecurity network provider in OpenAI’s Trusted Access in Cyber program, said they use GPT 5.5 and later OpenAI models to scan and triage internal codebases for vulnerabilities, test new safeguards and provide “highly autonomized service” to their customers.

Zvik wouldn’t disclose how many bugs 5.5 has found but said the company’s view is that it helps both find bugs that humans missed and rank which ones to patch based on factors like each bug’s exploitability.

“It is now a native part of our development environment and cycles, and we use those models to scale our entire codebase and make sure what we release into the service that our customers use to run their networks and network security has the least likelihood of having any vulnerabilities that can be exploited,” said Zvik.

John Hopper, vice president of engineering at SpecterOps, an identity security company, said newer models like GPT 5.5 are sharper and more persistent in pursuing their tasks.

“That can be a good or bad thing,” he noted.

One metric that SpecterOps tracks is how long it can keep a particular agent working before it moves off task or fails. That metric “matters a lot” because the longer an agent works without human help , the more agents a single operator can run at once.

Hopper said this provides defenders with immense value, and pushed back on the idea that the offensive capabilities the models offer are automatically more beneficial to malicious hackers. There is “a modicum of grounding that the industry needs when we talk about these models.”

“Yes, AI frontier tools will lower the barrier of entry, but these problems have always existed,” he said. “I don’t actually believe that AI is going to remove the needle in the haystack problem, but by howdy, using my two hands to find that damn needle, compared to using a backhoe, I can tell you which one I’d rather be driving.”

Eran Kinsbruner, vice president of product marketing at software security firm Checkmarx, told CyberScoop that later models like OpenAI’s Codex Security and GPT 5.5 are noticeably easier to set up and run with local systems, even for less technical users. That alone gives them an edge over many cybersecurity tools where interoperability is a constant concern.

However, GPT 5.5 burns through tokens at a much faster rate. He recalled one instance of using it to scan a medium-sized repository in three different programming languages.

“After 26 minutes I almost ran out of tokens, and it didn’t provide anything, just created a threat model for me and told me you want to buy more tokens?” he said.

In other instances, some of the scan results he received were not comprehensive.

Further, he expressed frustration with some of the guardrails designed to prevent risk – like only allowing users to scan local files but not code repositories like GitHub – “makes not too much sense” given how often developers must work with remote code.

Those kinds of guardrails – which can prevent models or developers from injecting malicious code or prompting into their models – sit at the heart of the debate in Washington D.C. and around the world. Some users feel differently about their utility.

Kinsbruner said that doesn’t make sense for organizations like his, which work with thousands of different enterprise organizations with  thousands of different code repositories spread across the internet.

“I cannot imagine how large-scale developers could just jump into this solution and make it an enterprise-grade, enterprise-level, de facto cybersecurity solution” out of it, said Kinsbruner.

OpenAI did not respond to a request from CyberScoop for an interview on GPT 5.5. The company has since released another model, GPT 5.6, that they said is more efficient at token use.

The White House’s crash course in AI cyber risk 

 The White House keeps changing its line on whether and how the U.S. government should limit the release of commercial frontier models. The shift comes from lessons learned since coming into office in Jan. 2025. Trump threw out Biden-era regulations meant to steer the industry toward safer models. Top officials like Vice President JD Vance argued against restricting industry progress.

Less than two years later, administration officials worry about the impact of speed and scale – two things AI excels at – in cyberspace.

According to Will Loucks, senior director of intelligence at the Office of the National Cyber Director, over the past two years the number of exposed and known vulnerabilities has shot up. Threat actors exploit those flaws faster before defenders can fix them. Once inside, the time from initial access to full network control shrinks.

“So in other words, every stage of the cyber operations lifecycle that a threat actor has to move through to get to a victim network and achieve an outcome, they’re just moving through more quickly faster,” said Loucks at a July 16 event in Washington D.C.

Speaking about AI in particular, Loucks said one of the defining characteristics of the technology is its ability to lower barriers for threat actors.

“Sometimes speed and volume have a threatening aspect alone, even if sophistication isn’t quite increasing in the same way, and the reason for that is because it places pressure on defenders…to triage alerts more quickly,” he said.

Jordan Rae Kelly, former director for cyber and incident response on the White House’s National Security Council during Trump’s first term, told CyberScoop that the changes over the past two years reflect the lessons the White House has learned on the issue since returning to office.

In the early days of this administration, Kelly said, “there is a sense and a spirit that the Biden administration was limiting AI and there was a kind of a rip-it-all-off [attitude], everybody go and do whatever, we will be the biggest and boldest and brightest.”

“I love that talking point, but I think what you’ve seen is probably an education over the last 19 months, where people [in the White House] have said that’s a challenging premise to put into place, knowing about the potential downsides and capabilities,” she added.

Michael Daniel, former White House cyber coordinator under President Barack Obama, thinks the horse may already be out of the barn.

Daniel, now head of the Cyber Threat Alliance, a membership nonprofit group focused on cyber threat information sharing between industry and government, said his members report that AI is being used to do things “faster and at a slightly bigger scale” but aren’t yet seeing the flood of exploitation that analysts have warned about. Not yet.

“I think what we’re seeing right now [and] talking about is ‘okay, where are the step changes [in the cyber threat landscape] actually going to occur?” said Daniel. “Are we and when will we see the explosion in vulnerability reporting from these Mythos-like capabilities? That’s what’s really got their attention right now.”

But Mythos and OpenAI’s Daybreak models are restricted to select organizations, and neither has publicly released its most powerful cybersecurity models to the public. That dynamic won’t last.

The UK’s AI Security Institute estimates that open source and foreign LLM models are between 4-7 months behind frontier U.S. models. In that setting, it’s hard to stop the development of AI models worldwide through export controls or other limits.

“It’s not like we’re buying ourselves five to ten years on this,” he said. “We’re not, and so I’m not sure the impact on the defenders who are trying to obey the law is worth whatever small hiccup we cause for our adversaries.”

Kelly said there’s merit to the administration’s current position, even if it took time to get there. Many federal cybersecurity procedures that operated even a decade ago – such as a Vulnerabilities Equities Process that could take days or weeks to consider the pros and cons of keeping an exploit – are no longer practical.

“All of that work to some degree, is out the window, because you can’t meet with the regularity you would need to meet to adjudicate vulnerabilities that are being found in seconds and exploited in minutes,” said Kelly.

But Kelly and others say that’s also because AI capabilities in cybersecurity are developing faster than policymakers can react, even in the best of times.

Key questions remain and the administration’s balance between national security and backing domestic industry will likely shift  in response to new events.  The administration wants a framework that can predict and manage the risks of AI models today and tomorrow. That may be harder than it sounds.

“Do I think they’ve been clear? No,” said Kelly. “But I think it’s a place where clarity is really hard to achieve.”

The post Where’s the Trump administration line on AI regulation? appeared first on CyberScoop.

Anthropic has announced its Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models will once again be available to the public as it has reached an agreement with the Commerce Department to deploy the AI models with new guardrails and classifiers meant to address jailbreaks.

In a blog posted Tuesday, Anthropic said that export controls that prevented their sale to foreign companies and individuals have been lifted after weeks of negotiation with the White House and Commerce Department. The company has also restored access to the model for U.S. users.

The export controls were put in place after the Trump administration became alarmed by a threat intelligence report from Amazon claiming to have jailbroken Fable’s cybersecurity capabilities.

On X, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick appeared to confirm that the restrictions would be lifted.

“Over the past two weeks, we have worked closely with Anthropic to analyze and approve Fable 5 to ensure alignment across the US Government and strengthen America’s leadership in AI,” Lutnick wrote.

The administration levied the export controls after becoming concerned that the release of Fable 5 would lead to the model being jailbroken, giving users access to cybersecurity and other capabilities that Anthropic has said could wreak havoc on the open internet if  placed in the wrong hands. The Amazon report convinced administration officials that such jailbreaks were on the immediate horizon.

However, one oddity of the administration’s decision is that the capabilities described in the Amazon report, by all accounts, are not cutting-edge. Scanning code and breaking down how to exploit vulnerabilities for a user is already possible with existing models.

Anthropic confirmed that, saying that further testing found that equivalent and lesser models like ChatGPT 5.5, Claude Opus 4.8 and Kimi K2.7 could identify the same vulnerabilities as Fable did in the Amazon report, while a half dozen existing models were able to produce the same proof of concept code as Fable.

Crucially, Anthropic reiterated that they have yet to see a jailbreak that affects the model’s restrictions on cybersecurity and biology work, though they did call this instance “a borderline case.” Indeed, some cybersecurity professionals have publicly complained that existing safety guardrails on Fable 5 blocked many routine defensive cybersecurity work in addition to malicious use cases.

“Importantly, the reported technique did not expose any unique Mythos-level cyber capabilities,” the blog continued. “The behavior reflected a borderline case for Fable 5’s safeguards…there are some tasks that are unlikely to be dangerous but are nonetheless blocked by the safeguards out of an abundance of caution. The reported technique allowed access to one such behavior, but it only involved routine defensive cybersecurity work.”

Anthropic said it has trained new safety classifiers to target and block the behaviors described in the Amazon report and notify users when it happens, and that the new safeguards have been stress tested by the federal Center for AI Standards and Innovation. The new classifiers will block the techniques “99.9%” of the time, but Anthropic said they’re not expected to block all lower risk routine cyberdefense capabilities, just the most harmful ones.

The restrictions will likely make it even harder to use Fable 5 for defensive cybersecurity. One effect the company expects is that more “benign” requests for routine coding and debugging tasks will be flagged by the system.

Christopher Padilla, former Assistant Secretary for Commerce for export administration in the George W. Bush administration, said that while it’s “good news” the controls have ultimately been lifted, the Trump administration’s AI policy stumbles over the past two years illustrate “the risks of ad hoc, transactional policymaking.”

In a LinkedIn post, Padilla called the Trump administration’s approach chaotic and unpredictable — the opposite of the clear, consistent rules industry depends on. While Vice President J.D. Vance mocked AI safety regulations in a speech in Europe last year, the administration has quietly partnered with OpenAI and Anthropic on voluntary national security testing, especially as frontier models began showing advanced automation and cyberattack capabilities.

That national security arrangement was supposedly codified in a White House executive order last month, shaped heavily by industry boosters who feared regulatory delays would slow U.S. development. But days after Fable’s release, Commerce imposed new export controls on Anthropic’s models anyway.

Padilla called proposed AI safety regulations by the Biden administration “flawed and overly complex” but nevertheless predictable compared to the status quo. Instead of replacing those proposed regulations with their own vision, the Trump White House has been “to put it mildly, all over the place on AI policy.”

“The same BIS that stopped Fable and Mythos has a permissive policy for exporting high-end AI semiconductors to China — in exchange for a cut of the take,” said Padilla, referencing the Trump administration’s lifting of export controls on advanced AI chips. “This is not a smart way to make policy. Bad for industry competitiveness and for national security.”

The post US lifting export control restrictions on Anthropic’s Mythos, Fable appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Federal Communications Commission approved new rules Thursday that boost cybersecurity regulations for the nation’s emergency alert systems and update security rules for the nation’s undersea cables.

The new rule would overhaul two national emergency systems, the Emergency Alert System and Wireless Emergency Alerts, to better protect against hijacking attacks from malicious actors.

The EAS is a national public warning system that state and local authorities use to disseminate information related to weather events, AMBER alerts and other emergencies via radio and television broadcasting stations. The WEA handles much of the same messaging via text.

A compromise of either system by a foreign government, cybercriminal group or other rogue actor could be used to sow chaos and disinformation in calmer times, or impede coordination efforts in the face of a genuine emergency. Any vulnerability in systems like the Emergency Alert System “can have serious consequences,” said FCC Commissioner Olivia Trusty in a statement after the vote.

“That is why it has been appropriate for the Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of the EAS framework by focusing on the security of the system itself,” Trusty continued. “As cybersecurity threats continue to evolve, EAS participants must take appropriate steps to safeguard the infrastructure that supports the delivery of life-saving alerts.”

The new rules amount to basic – but still critical – cyber hygiene practices for users accessing and updating the EAS and WEA systems. They must use strong passwords, quickly install security patches from vendors and use firewalls to limit access to their equipment.

The rule also creates a new authentication ID system to verify alerts before they’re submitted and avoid duplicate or unauthorized alerts from spreading.

Another rule passed by the Commission Thursday provided the first comprehensive update to the FCC’s submarine cable regulations in decades, and moves to tighten cybersecurity requirements in some areas while loosening them in others.

It exempts some undersea cable providers from submitting to stringent national security licensing reviews needed to land and operate cables that touch U.S. territory.

The review, called “Team Telecom,” is an interagency body led by the Department of Justice’s Foreign Investment Review Section and other federal agencies that advise the FCC on the national security implications of their telecom policies.

The new rules would presumptively exempt applications for undersea cable licensees when the provider can self-certify to “high security standards” that are “structured to increase certainty, predictability, and faster timelines for the licensing process.”

“Currently, all submarine cable applications get referred to Team Telecom…the changes adopted would exempt applications from applicants that have operated cables without incident, can certify to the highest national security standards, and agree to ongoing oversight and monitoring,” the FCC said in a release.

Other parts of the rule give the FCC greater oversight of critical functions within undersea cable operations. Owners and operators of submarine line terminal equipment, who connect submarine cables to land-based facilities in the U.S., will be subject to a new licensing requirement.

The rule also moves to update safeguards meant to address vulnerabilities related to principal equipment, third-party service providers, and other areas of concern in the undersea cable supply chain.

The post FCC passes new cybersecurity rules for emergency systems, undersea cables appeared first on CyberScoop.

A policy paper published Tuesday advocates for software bills of materials (SBOMs) for artificial intelligence as a mechanism for reducing cyber risk and improving transparency, and seeks to give lawmakers, federal agencies and others a roadmap on how to proceed.

The SBOM, commonly described as an inventory of software ingredients, emerged in the 2010s and has expanded beyond software to include hardware and AI.

But the paper from the Institute for Security and Technology, which CyberScoop is the first to report on, argues that AIBOMS require foundational work before they can be widely implemented.  This comes as some companies are already offering AIBOM services and other organizations are actively shaping AIBOM policy.

“What we’re worried about is we would end up in a ‘fire, ready, aim’ situation where everyone was doing it, but we were all doing slightly different things,” said a co-author of the paper, Allan Friedman, who has worked on SBOMs in multiple U.S. government roles. “If we don’t have a shared vision, it becomes a lot harder to have a coherent policy. It becomes a lot harder to have common tools and interoperable data and it becomes a lot harder to use the data that we’re tracking to actually deliver on the promise of supply chain transparency.”

The idea for the paper sprung from discussions with Hill aides and Pentagon staffers, Friedman said, and people like them are the target audience as well.

A key premise is that AIBOM policy needs to explore the topic from two sides.

“How do you solve the chicken-and-egg issue, where no one’s providing the data, so no one’s asking for it, and no one’s asking for it, so no one’s providing it?” Friedman told CyberScoop. “The answer is, you have to go from both supply and demand.”

On the supply side, “An AIBOM should capture relevant details about the models and datasets used for training, fine-tuning, evaluation, validation, testing, retrieval, grounding, augmentation, or other model development or operational purposes,” the paper suggests.

“The demand side begins with some form of forcing function or requirement that organizations understand what is in the products they manufacture and sell,” it states, with one such requirement potentially being an industry mandate to require the tracking of system components — for example, like the “lightweight” standards used in the payment card industry on data security that isn’t overly exact about how components should be tracked.

But it could also include government regulations or contracting conditions, Friedman argues with his Institute for Security and Technology colleague Nick Leiserson. (The scope of government directives on AI is a topic of considerable debate on Capitol Hill and within the Trump administration right now.)

Friedman said the paper isn’t meant to be the be-all, end-all, and acknowledged the prior work of organizations like the Open Worldwide Application Security Project (OWASP) and Linux Foundation.

“We’re not saying this is a brand new topic, nor are we saying that AIBOM will solve all AI security issues,” he said. “I’ve been fighting this fight for SBOM for a decade. You know, SBOM will not pick up your dry cleaning.”

And as AI continues to evolve rapidly, that means papers like the one published Tuesday are just at the beginning of the discussion, Friedman said.

The post A case for how to shape ‘ingredient lists’ for AI models appeared first on CyberScoop.

The U.S. Postal Service is moving forward with mail-in ballot restrictions, following a court’s rejection of a request by voting rights groups to immediately block an executive order from President Donald Trump ordering the changes.

A new regulation proposed last Friday seeks to apply “uniform standards for the mailing of absentee ballots to and from voters,” including new ballot envelope standards with unique barcodes, election mail logos and other changes that would allow the federal government unprecedented abilities to track – and halt – the movement of mail-in ballots across the country.

Trump has long argued that mail-in ballots facilitated election fraud in 2020 that cost him the presidency, though election experts, election officials and even some Trump allies have dismissed those claims as baseless.

According to the proposed rule, these changes would allow USPS to follow ballots at a granular and individual level, something critics have said will make it easier for the Trump administration to meddle with their delivery.

“Uniquely serialized [barcodes] facilitate the tracking of individual pieces of Ballot Mail to and from individual voters as the barcodes are scanned on the Postal Service’s mail processing equipment,” the proposed rule states.

Trump’s executive order, issued in March, would require states to send the federal government a list of all voters eligible to vote by mail prior to USPS mailing them ballots. The federal government has indicated that it plans to cross-check those voters with data from the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice.

The proposed rule says that after states submit their list of eligible mail-in and absentee voters, USPS will “compile” the information and then provide a “Mail-In and Absentee Participation List” back to them. The Postal Service said it “would not change the information provided by states” when compiling the return list. 

Further, the proposed regulation also includes new “verification” procedures that could potentially place USPS above states in deciding which voters are eligible to receive ballots. This would include having the USPS “confirm that a state submitted a list consistent with the conditions laid out in the proposed rule, and that the outbound ballot mail, and thus the blank ballot that could be returned by mail, is destined to individuals on the list, by checking the barcodes.”

The rule claims that USPS “would not verify whether individuals should be included” on state lists and that states retain “full control over the content of that list.”

However, the White House’s March order also instructed the Department of Justice to prioritize the investigation and prosecution of state and local officials or any others involved in the administration of federal elections who issue federal ballots to individuals not eligible to vote in a federal election.

That order was immediately challenged through lawsuits in multiple federal courts, where many of the White House’s plans to take greater control of elections have fallen short. That includes a lawsuit brought by Democrats and nonprofits in Washington.

While Judge Carl Nichols declined to halt the order, that decision was made on strictly procedural grounds, and he indicated the plaintiffs could be in a better position to prove their case later.

“The Court recognizes that the Postal Service may ultimately issue a final rule that directly affects Plaintiffs or their members, or that the Government may develop State Citizenship Lists that omit specific individuals due to particularized flaws,” Nichols wrote. “Plaintiffs may, of course, renew their motions if and when those future actions occur. Until then, however, Plaintiffs cannot show that preliminary injunctive relief is warranted.”

A separate federal lawsuit challenging the order in Massachusetts remains ongoing.

Alexandra Chandler, director of Free and Fair Elections at nonprofit Protect Democracy, noted that USPS and the federal government have no constitutional authority to regulate how states administer their elections, including micromanaging voter roll maintenance.

While the proposed regulation claims USPS will not overrule states on a voter’s eligibility to receive mail-in or absentee ballots, it’s also peppered with caveats and exceptions that could allow USPS to do just that if they determine it is part of their obligation to uphold federal laws or assist law enforcement investigations.

The rule states that USPS “assumes no responsibility for any outbound ballot mailing” until its accepted into the mail, and is “not responsible for service delays” whenever preparation or entry standards aren’t met.

Chandler called the proposed rule a clear attempt to disrupt election processes, sow distrust in elections among voters and lay “the groundwork to disrupt ballot delivery in real time, create fodder for false investigations and prosecutions, and to contest the midterms after the fact.”

“The administration is trying to turn postal workers into de facto election auditors with the power to decide whether people’s votes get counted while at the same time building an entire federal voter data and technical infrastructure it has no legal authority to create,” Chandler said.

The post USPS moving forward with mail-in ballot changes as courts weigh Trump’s election order  appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Federal Trade Commission is set to begin enforcing a key provision of the Take Down Act on May 19, requiring websites and online services to remove nonconsensual deepfake media within 48 hours after a victim’s notice—or risk fines and FTC investigation.

The law, passed by Congress last year, allowed law enforcement to immediately prosecute individuals who create and post such content online. But platforms and websites that host the material were given a yearlong runway to build out their reporting and takedown system. Under the enforcement regime taking effect, businesses that fail to remove flagged media within the 48-hour notification window could face fines and an investigation from the FTC.

This week, FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson sent letters to private-sector companies detailing how the commission intends to police compliance once enforcement begins. The FTC set a maximum civil penalty of – $53,088 per violation for companies that don’t take down content as required, and Ferguson’s letter outlines other requirements, including that companies make it easy and convenient for users to submit takedown requests.

“We stand ready to monitor compliance, investigate violations, and enforce the Take It Down Act,” Ferguson said in a statement. “Protecting the vulnerable—especially children—from this harmful abuse is a top priority for this agency and this administration.”

Ferguson’s letter sheds new light on how the FTC will enforce content takedowns under the law.  Both nonconsensual intimate imagery posted online using real photos of other individuals as well as AI-generated or modified “digital forgeries” would be considered violations.

Companies must also make it easy for victims without accounts to report potential violations, details their reporting and removal program on their website “in plain language” and provide “clear and conspicuous” notice to users about how to request removals.

According to the FTC, the law covers websites, apps, social media, image or video sharing services and gaming platforms. Ferguson’s letters were addressed to a who’s who of tech and social media companies, including Amazon, Alphabet, Apple, Automattic, Bumble, Discord, Match Group, Meta, Microsoft, Pinterest, Reddit, SmugMug, Snapchat, TikTok and X.

Earlier this year, Grok, the AI service that X users have access to, was used to flood the social media site with nonconsensual, sexualized deepfakes of real people. Elon Musk, X’s owner, initially brushed off critics but has since been hit with multiple criminal and civil investigations stemming from the incident, as well as lawsuits and calls from some world leaders to ban the app entirely.

 The FTC is also recommending that companies implement hashing technologies “to prevent the reappearance of intimate content you already removed from your platform” and share their findings with nonprofits like the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and StopNCII.org to track across other parts of the internet.

Becca Branum, director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, told CyberScoop that some elements of the FTC’s approach – like requiring clear and simple reporting options for victims – aligns with best practices established by civil society groups.

But she also said the FTC’s role under the Take It Down Act is materially different from anything the commission has done before. The sheer scale of enforcement and monitoring will require human and technical resources on par with those of major social media companies.

“I’m very concerned about the FTC and its ability to fairly enforce this law,” said Branum. “They are now in the business of regulating content moderation. That is hard work and not something they’re used to doing.”

Some legal and privacy experts pointed to the large financial penalties set by the FTC as a sign that policymakers are looking to put real teeth behind enforcement. Those penalties could pile up quickly if a business is hosting or publishing multiple copies of the same flagged media and declines to remove it within two days.

“For covered platforms, compliance with the Act is critical given the FTC’s emphasis on enforcement – reflecting White House priorities – and potential civil penalties up to $53,088 per violation,” wrote privacy attorneys Duane Pozza and Ian Barlow.

But Branum said the hefty fines also emphasize “just how much incentive will be in place for platforms to take anything that comes down the complaint line.”

While the Take It Down Act is designed to force companies to investigate claims and remove violating content, the regulatory and financial incentives push them to simply remove almost all content reported by default. That approach, which many of the same tech companies have taken under laws like the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, can be exploited by bad faith actors seeking to shut down legal speech or content online.

“If you think there’s any given post [where] if you ask an attorney is it worth $53,000 for me to keep this post up, the answer is always going to be taken it down,” Branum said. “I can’t imagine any service wanting to risk that type of fine on edge cases or anything they can’t verify or account for within 48 hours.”

The post Here’s how the FTC plans to enforce the Take It Down Act appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Federal Communications Commission approved new regulations Wednesday designed to crack down on robocalling, protect telecommunications networks from cyberattacks and further vet equipment-testing labs based overseas.

Commissioners unanimously passed a measure to strengthen telecom companies’ “Know Your Customer” requirements for verifying callers’ identities. Among the potential solutions being considered are requiring telecoms to verify a customer’s name, address, government ID and alternative phone numbers prior to enabling their service.

In a statement ahead of the vote, FCC Chair Brendan Carr said that under current rules some telecoms “do the bare minimum” to verify callers and have “become complicit in illegal robocalling schemes.”

“As we have continued to investigate the problem of illegal robocalls over the last year, it has become clear that some originating providers are not doing enough to vet their customers, allowing bad actors to infiltrate our U.S. phone networks,” he said.

Current rules require telecoms to take “affirmative, effective” measures to verify callers and block illegal calls, but in practice this system has largely relied on self-attestation from the companies. Because a single call can traverse multiple networks, carriers must also often rely on identity verification performed by other telecoms.

For example, the telecom that transmitted thousands of false robocalls imitating then-President Joe Biden during the 2024 New Hampshire presidential primary initially reported to the FCC that they had the highest level of confidence in the identity of those using the phone numbers. That turned out to be false, as the robocallers spoofed a well-known former state Democratic Party official.

Unsurprisingly, the commission is also interested in finding ways to better enforce Know Your Customer rules, including tying penalties to the number of illegal calls that were placed.

Since 1999, the FCC has traditionally granted blanket authorization for domestic carriers to operate interstate telecommunications services within U.S. borders. Another rule passed by the commission today would formally end that practice for foreign companies on the FCC’s covered entity list.  

The list bans a small number of foreign companies based in Russia or China from selling their equipment in the U.S. on national security grounds, but Carr said equipment from those companies often wind up in U.S. products by providing services that don’t fall under the current legal definition of international telecommunications authority.

Commissioner Olivia Trusty, who helped lead the development of the rule, said cybersecurity threats facing telecom networks today “exceed those of any recent era” and that updates must be made to modernize and harden networks.

“In response to these growing hostilities, it is imperative that we re-examine policies that permit access to U.S. networks to ensure that frameworks originally designed to promote economic growth are not exploited in ways that jeopardize our national and economic security,” Trusty said in a statement after the vote passed.

The FCC also passed a third measure that would refuse to recognize any testing or equipment lab based overseas that does not have a reciprocity agreement in place with U.S.-based labs. The rule builds off efforts last year to prohibit telecoms from relying on testing and certification labs that are owned or operated by foreign adversarial countries like China or Russia, which led to the FCC withdrawing or denying certification of 23 overseas labs.

The post FCC tightens KYC rules for telecoms, closes loophole for banned foreign services appeared first on CyberScoop.

CJ Cox// Spring storms are often more dangerous and unpredictable than winter storms. The GDPR looks to be no exception. The General Data Protection Regulation is a universal law brought […]

The post WEBCAST: GDPR – Spring Storm Warning appeared first on Black Hills Information Security, Inc..