On July 23, the White House released its AI Action Plan, outlining the key priorities of the Trump Administration’s AI policy agenda.  In parallel, President Trump signed three AI executive orders directing the Executive Branch to implement the AI Action Plan’s policies on “Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government,” “Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure,” and “Promoting the Export of the American AI Technology Stack.”  In a speech announcing these developments, President Trump stated that the Administration’s AI policies will “lead[] the world into the golden age of America” that will be “built by American workers,” “powered by American energy,” “run on American technology,” and “improved by American artificial intelligence.”

I. AI Action Plan

The 28-page plan, titled “Winning the Race: America’s AI Action Plan,” follows months of stakeholder and agency consultation and over 10,000 public comments in response to the White House’s February 6 Request for Information.  The AI Action Plan fulfills the core requirement of President Trump’s January 23 Executive Order 14179 on “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence,” which directed the Assistant to the President for Science & Technology, White House AI & Crypto Czar, and National Security Advisor to develop and submit an action plan for achieving the Executive Order’s policy of sustaining and enhancing America’s global AI dominance.  

Stating that winning the AI race will usher in an “industrial revolution, an information revolution, and a renaissance – all at once,” the AI Action Plan declares that the United States must rapidly innovate in AI across every field, remove unnecessary regulatory barriers, build AI infrastructure and energy capacity, establish American AI as the global “gold standard,” and ensure that U.S. allies rely on U.S. technology.  The AI Action Plan also describes guiding principles that inform its recommendations: (1) creating opportunities for American workers, (2) ensuring that AI systems are “trustworthy,” “free from ideological bias,” and “designed to pursue objective truth rather than social engineering agendas,” and (3) preventing U.S. technology from misuse or theft from malicious actors and monitoring emerging AI risks.

To advance these goals, the AI Action Plan recommends 103 specific AI policy actions for “near-term execution by the Federal government,” organized under the three pillars of (1) accelerating AI innovation, (2) building American AI infrastructure, and (3) leading in international AI diplomacy and security. 

State and Federal AI Regulations.  Echoing the concerns behind the proposed state AI enforcement moratorium that failed to pass the Senate earlier this month, the AI Action Plan finds that “AI is far too important to smother in bureaucracy at this early stage, whether at the state or Federal level,” and calls for:

  • The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to ensure that federal agencies with AI-related discretionary funding programs consider a state’s AI regulations when making funding decisions, and to limit federal funding for states with AI regulatory regimes that may hinder the effectiveness of the funds;
  • The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to identify state AI regulations that interfere with the FCC’s mandate under the Communications Act;
  • The Office of Science and Technology Policy (“OSTP”) to issue a request for information to identify current federal regulations that hinder AI innovation and adoption; and
  • The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to review its investigations commenced under the Biden Administration to ensure they do not advance “theories of liability that unduly burden AI innovation,” and (2) all FTC final orders, consent decrees, and injunctions in order to modify or set-aside those that “unduly burden AI innovation.”

“Woke AI” Revisions to the NIST AI Risk Management Framework.  The AI Action Plan states that AI systems must be “built from the ground up with freedom of speech and expression in mind,” and that AI procured by the federal government must “objectively reflect[] truth rather than social engineering agendas.”  To these ends, the AI Action Plan calls on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) to revise the NIST AI Risk Management Framework to “eliminate references to misinformation, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and climate change,” and recommends that the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (“CAISI”), formerly known as the U.S. AI Safety Institute, conduct research and publish evaluations of whether Chinese frontier model outputs reflect Chinese Communist Party talking points and censorship.

In contrast, the now-withdrawn 2022 Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, published by OSTP during the Biden Administration, had emphasized the importance of algorithmic discrimination protections to ensure equitable AI systems, including representative datasets and bias impact assessments.  The AI Action Plan eliminates DEI considerations from federal AI frameworks and mandates that AI systems pursue “objective truth” and “be free from ideological bias.”

Regulatory Sandboxes and Standards for AI Adoption.  Noting that the “bottleneck to harnessing AI’s full potential” comes from the slow adoption of AI in critical sectors like healthcare, the AI Action Plan calls for:

  • The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), and other regulatory agencies to establish regulatory sandboxes or AI Centers of Excellence to support rapid AI deployment and testing;
  • The Department of Defense (“DOD”) to conduct comparative assessments of AI tool adoption in the United States and other countries; and
  • NIST to launch public-private efforts in healthcare, energy, agriculture, and other areas to accelerate the development and adoption of AI national standards.

Government AI Procurement.  The AI Action Plan notes that “transformative use of AI can help deliver the highly responsive government the American people expect and deserve,” and calls on the federal government to build on the OMB’s April memoranda on the federal use and acquisition of AI by:

  • Updating federal procurement guidelines to ensure that the government only contracts with frontier large language model (“LLM”) developers who “ensure that their systems are objective and free from top-down ideological bias”;
  • Formalizing the role of the Chief AI Officer Council as the primary entity for interagency coordination and collaboration on AI adoption;
  • Creating an “AI procurement toolbox” under the General Services Administration (“GSA”) to facilitate uniformity in federal adoption of AI models, and to allow federal agencies to choose between models while complying with privacy, data governance, and transparency laws; and
  • Convening “agencies with High Impact Service Providers” to pilot uses of AI for improving the delivery of public services, under the auspices of OMB.

Department of Defense AI Adoption.  Stating that the United States “must aggressively adopt AI within its Armed Forces if it is to maintain its global military preeminence” while ensuring that its “use of AI is secure and reliable,” the AI Action Plan contains several recommendations to drive adoption of AI within DOD that specifically address DOD’s “unique operational needs,” including:

  • Identifying AI-related DOD workforce skills and implementing talent development programs that meet AI workforce requirements;
  • Establishing a DOD AI & Autonomous Systems Virtual Proving Ground;
  • Developing a streamlined process for optimizing DOD workflows and a list of priority workflows for automation with AI;
  • Prioritizing DOD agreements with cloud service providers, computing infrastructure operators, and other private entities to codify priority access to computing resources in the event of a national emergency; and
  • Growing U.S. Senior Military Colleges into hubs of AI research, development, and talent building, and fostering AI-specific curriculum in the Senior Military Colleges majors.

AI-Related Manufacturing.  The AI Action Plan states that AI and related technologies, including “autonomous drones, self-driving cars, robotics, and other inventions,” have novel manufacturing and logistics applications, and that the United States and its allies must be “world-class manufacturers of these next-generation technologies.”  To these ends, the AI Action Plan calls for:

  • Federal investments in foundational and translational manufacturing technologies through various funding authorities, including CHIPS R&D programs, Title III of the Defense Production Act, and Other Transaction Authority;
  • The Department of Commerce to convene industry and government stakeholders to identify supply chain challenges relevant to U.S. robotics and drone manufacturing;
  • The Department of Commerce and its CHIPS Program Office to continue to deliver returns on investment for the American taxpayer, remove extraneous policy requirements for CHIPS-funded semiconductor manufacturing projects, streamline regulations that slow semiconductor manufacturing, and review semiconductor grant and research programs to ensure that they accelerate the adoption of AI.

AI Infrastructure Permitting and Development.  To support the development of new AI infrastructure, including “factories to produce chips, data centers to run those chips, and new sources of energy to power it all,” the AI Action Plan recommends various steps to accelerate AI infrastructure permitting and development, including:

  • Establishing new categorical exclusions for data centers under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”);
  • Expanding the use of Title 41 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (“FAST-41”) to cover data center and data center energy projects;
  • Considering a nationwide Clean Water Act Section 404 permit for data centers that would waive pre-construction notification requirements;
  • Expediting environmental permitting under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and other laws;
  • Making federal lands available for data center and power generation infrastructure construction; and
  • Ensuring that the “domestic AI computing stack” is built on American products and that AI infrastructure is free of foreign adversary technologies and services.

Electric Grid Improvements.  The AI Action Plan finds that “[e]scalating demand driven by electrification and the technological advancements of AI are increasing pressures on the grid,” and calls for a comprehensive strategy to enhance and expand the U.S. electric grid while preserving existing capacity.  Specifically, the AI Action Plan recommends:

  • Stabilizing the current grid by preventing the premature decommissioning of power generation resources, exploring new ways to harness existing energy capacity, and optimizing existing grid resources by enhancing transmission system efficiency and performance;
  • Prioritizing grid interconnections between “reliable, dispatchable power sources”;
  • Embracing new energy generation sources “at the technological frontier,” including enhanced geothermal, nuclear fission, and nuclear fusion energy;
  • Reforming power markets to provide financial incentives for grid stability; and
  • Creating a strategic blueprint on the 21st century energy landscape.

AI Cybersecurity and Secure-By-Design AI.  The AI Action Plan states promoting resilient and secure AI development and deployment is a “core activity of the U.S. government,” and calls for all AI used in safety-critical or homeland security applications to be “secure-by-design, robust, and resilient,” able to detect performance shifts, and alert to malicious activities, such as data poisoning or adversarial example attacks.  To achieve these goals, the AI Action Plan calls for:

  • Establishing an AI Information Sharing and Analysis Center (AI-ISAC) to promote AI-security threat information and intelligence sharing across critical infrastructure sectors;
  • Issuing private sector guidance on responding to AI-specific vulnerabilities and threats;
  • Ensuring that known AI vulnerabilities are shared by Federal agencies to the private sector as appropriate, using existing cyber vulnerability sharing mechanisms;
  • The DOD to refine its Responsible AI and Generative AI Frameworks, Roadmaps, and Toolkits; and
  • The Director of National Intelligence to publish an Intelligence Community Standard on AI Assurance under Intelligence Community Directive 505 on AI governance and management.

U.S. AI Exports and Export Controls.  The AI Action Plan calls on the United States to “drive adoption of American AI systems, computing hardware, and standards throughout the world” by leveraging its advantages in “data center construction, computing hardware performance, and models,” while also preventing adversaries from “free-riding” on U.S. innovation and investment.  To achieve this goal, the AI Action Plan calls for:

  • The United States to meet global AI demand by exporting its “full AI technology stack,” including hardware, models, software, applications, and standards, to all partner countries by selecting industry proposals for “full-stack AI export packages” and facilitating deals to export the AI technology stack;
  • The Departments of State and Commerce to advocate for international AI governance approaches that “promote innovation, reflect American values, and counter authoritarian influence” in international and standard-setting bodies”;
  • Federal agencies to consider location verification techniques to track advanced AI chips and ensure that they are not in countries of concern;
  • A new “global chip export control enforcement” effort under the Department of Commerce to monitor chip diversion and increase monitoring in countries where AI chip diversion is likely;
  • The Department of Commerce to develop new export controls on “semiconductor manufacturing sub-systems” to address gaps in semiconductor manufacturing export controls;
  • A technology diplomacy strategic plan to “induce” key U.S. allies to adopt similar AI protection systems and export controls across the supply chain; and
  • CAISI to evaluate frontier AI systems for national security risks in collaboration with AI developers, evaluate security vulnerabilities and malign foreign influence arising from the use of adversaries’ AI systems in critical infrastructure, and develop national security-related AI evaluations.

II. AI Executive Orders

The AI Action Plan coincides with President Trump’s signing of three AI executive orders on July 23.  The Executive Order on “Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government” (“Woke AI EO”), Executive Order on “Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure” (“Data Center EO”), and Executive Order on “Promoting the Export of the American AI Technology Stack” (“AI Export EO) collectively implement a wide range of the AI Action Plan’s key priorities.

A. Preventing “Woke AI” in the Federal Government

The “Woke AI” EO declares that the federal government “has the obligation not to procure models that sacrifice truthfulness and accuracy to ideological agendas” when procuring AI.  Thus, the “Woke AI” EO requires federal agencies to only procure LLMs that are developed in accordance with two “Unbiased AI Principles”:

  • (1) “Truth-seeking,” such that LLMs respond truthfully, prioritize historical accuracy, scientific inquiry, and objectivity, and acknowledge uncertainty; and
  • (2) “Ideological Neutrality,” such that LLMs are neutral, nonpartisan tools that do not “manipulate responses in favor of ideological dogmas such as [diversity, equity, and inclusion]” and do not generate outputs intentionally encoded with “partisan or ideological judgments” unless prompted by the end-user. 

The “Woke AI” EO directs the OMB to issue guidance to federal agencies on the implementation of the Unbiased AI Principles, including appropriate exceptions for the use of LLMs in national security systems, within 120 days, i.e., by November 20, 2025.  Upon the issuance of the OMB guidance, federal agencies must include, in any new or existing federal contract for an LLM, terms that require the procured LLM to comply with the Unbiased AI Principles and impose “decommissioning costs” on the LLM vendor in the event of noncompliance;

B. Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure

The Data Center EO takes a number of steps to accelerate the development of “qualifying projects,” i.e.,data centers requiring more than 100 megawatts for AI inference, training, simulation, or synthetic data generation, and data center components, including energy infrastructure, dispatchable baseload energy sources, semiconductors and semiconductor materials, networking equipment, and data storage.  Additionally, the Data Center EO officially revokes the Biden Administration’s January 14, 2025 Executive Order on “Advancing United States Leadership in Artificial Intelligence Infrastructure,” while retaining a similar emphasis on expediting permits and leasing federal lands for AI infrastructure development.

Financial Incentives for AI Infrastructure.  To facilitate the development of AI infrastructure, the Data Center EO requires the Department of Commerce to launch an initiative to provide financial support, including loans and loan guarantees, grants, tax incentives, and offtake agreements, for qualifying projects. 

Streamlined Permitting and Regulatory Reviews.  The Data Center EO also takes steps to expedite the permitting process for qualifying projects and reduce regulatory burdens, including by requiring:

  • Federal agencies to identify NEPA categorial exclusions that could facilitate qualifying project construction within 10 days, i.e.,by August 2, 2025;
  • The Council on Environmental Quality to establish new NEPA categorical exclusions to cover qualifying projects;
  • The Environmental Protection Agency to expedite permitting on federal and non-federal lands by developing or modifying regulations under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, and other laws that impact qualifying projects;
  • The Departments of Interior and Energy to ensure timely and efficient completion of consultations under the Endangered Species Act by conducting consultations with respect to qualifying projects “at a programmatic level”; and
  • The Army to review nationwide permits under the Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act to determine if an activity-specific nationwide permit is needed to facilitate efficient permitting of qualifying projects;

Federal Sites for AI Infrastructure.  Finally, the Data Center EO requires federal agencies to take various actions to facilitate the construction of AI data center infrastructure and components on federal lands.  Specifically, the Data Center EO directs:

  • The Environmental Protection Agency to “expeditiously identify Brownfield Sites and Superfund Sites” for use by qualifying projects, including by developing guidance to expedite environmental reviews within 180 days, i.e., by January 19, 2026;
  • The Departments of Interior and Energy to offer authorizations for federal sites identified for qualifying projects; and
  • The DOD to identify suitable sites on U.S. military installations for data center components, and to competitively lease available federal lands for qualifying projects to support DOD energy, workforce, and mission needs.

C. Promoting the Export of the American AI Technology Stack

The AI Export EO declares the United States’ policy of “preserv[ing] and extend[ing] American leadership in AI” and decreasing global dependence on adversaries’ AI technologies through the global export of “full-stack American AI technology packages,” i.e., AI hardware and networking, data pipelines and labeling systems, AI models and systems, security and cybersecurity measures, and use case-specific AI applications. 

American AI Exports Program.  The AI Export EO requires the Department of Commerce to establish an “American AI Exports Program” for soliciting public proposals for full-stack American AI technology packages from an “industry-led consortia.”  Such proposals must identify each component of the package and the target countries or regional blocs for export, and must comply with relevant U.S. export controls, outbound investment regulations, and end-user policies.  The AI Export EO further instructs the Department of Commerce to select proposals for inclusion in the American AI Exports Program, which will be designated as “priority AI export packages” and given priority access to the federal financing tools discussed below.

Federal Financing Tools for Priority AI Export Packages.  The AI Export EO directs the Economic Diplomacy Action Group to “coordinate mobilization of Federal financing tools in support of priority AI export packages,” including direct loans and loan guarantees under 12 U.S.C. 635; equity investments, co-financing, political risk insurance, and credit guarantees under 22 U.S.C. 9621; and technical assistance and feasibility studies under 22 U.S.C. 2421(b).

AI Export Initiatives by the Department of State.  The AI Export EO places various responsibilities related to AI exports on the Secretary of State, who is required to develop a national strategy to promote American AI technology exports and standards, coordinate U.S. participation in multilateral AI initiatives, foster “pro‑innovation regulatory, data, and infrastructure environments conducive to the deployment of American AI systems” in partner countries, analyze technical and regulatory barriers that may impede U.S. AI competitiveness, and facilitating investments in U.S. small businesses for the development of American AI technologies, infrastructure, hardware, and systems.

*              *              *

For more updates on developments related to artificial intelligence and technology, see our Inside Global Tech, Global Policy Watch, and Inside Privacy blogs.

Photo of Holly Fechner Holly Fechner

Holly Fechner advises clients on complex public policy matters that combine legal and political opportunities and risks. She leads teams that represent companies, entities, and organizations in significant policy and regulatory matters before Congress and the Executive Branch.

She is a co-chair of…

Holly Fechner advises clients on complex public policy matters that combine legal and political opportunities and risks. She leads teams that represent companies, entities, and organizations in significant policy and regulatory matters before Congress and the Executive Branch.

She is a co-chair of the Covington’s Technology Industry Group and a member of the Covington Political Action Committee board of directors.

Holly works with clients to:

Develop compelling public policy strategies
Research law and draft legislation and policy
Draft testimony, comments, fact sheets, letters and other documents
Advocate before Congress and the Executive Branch
Form and manage coalitions
Develop communications strategies

She is the Executive Director of Invent Together and a visiting lecturer at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. She serves on the board of directors of the American Constitution Society.

Holly served as Policy Director for Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) and Chief Labor and Pensions Counsel for the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee.

She received The American Lawyer, “Dealmaker of the Year” award in 2019. The Hill named her a “Top Lobbyist” from 2013 to the present, and she has been ranked by Chambers USA – America’s Leading Business Lawyers from 2012 to the present. One client noted to Chambers: “Holly is an exceptional attorney who excels in government relations and policy discussions. She has an incisive analytical skill set which gives her the capability of understanding extremely complex legal and institutional matters.” According to another client surveyed by Chambers, “Holly is incredibly intelligent, effective and responsive. She also leads the team in a way that brings out everyone’s best work.”

Read more about Holly Fechner
Show more Show less
Photo of Micaela McMurrough Micaela McMurrough

Micaela McMurrough serves as co-chair of Covington’s global and multi-disciplinary Technology Group, as co-chair of the Artificial Intelligence and Internet of Things (IoT) initiative. In her practice, she has represented clients in high-stakes antitrust, patent, trade secrets, contract, and securities litigation, and other…

Micaela McMurrough serves as co-chair of Covington’s global and multi-disciplinary Technology Group, as co-chair of the Artificial Intelligence and Internet of Things (IoT) initiative. In her practice, she has represented clients in high-stakes antitrust, patent, trade secrets, contract, and securities litigation, and other complex commercial litigation matters, and she regularly represents and advises domestic and international clients on cybersecurity and data privacy issues, including cybersecurity investigations and cyber incident response. Micaela has advised clients on data breaches and other network intrusions, conducted cybersecurity investigations, and advised clients regarding evolving cybersecurity regulations and cybersecurity norms in the context of international law.

In 2016, Micaela was selected as one of thirteen Madison Policy Forum Military-Business Cybersecurity Fellows. She regularly engages with government, military, and business leaders in the cybersecurity industry in an effort to develop national strategies for complex cyber issues and policy challenges. Micaela previously served as a United States Presidential Leadership Scholar, principally responsible for launching a program to familiarize federal judges with various aspects of the U.S. national security structure and national intelligence community.

Prior to her legal career, Micaela served in the Military Intelligence Branch of the United States Army. She served as Intelligence Officer of a 1,200-member maneuver unit conducting combat operations in Afghanistan and was awarded the Bronze Star.

Read more about Micaela McMurrough
Show more Show less
Photo of Jennifer Johnson Jennifer Johnson

Jennifer Johnson is a partner specializing in communications, media and technology matters who serves as Co-Chair of Covington’s Technology Industry Group and its global and multi-disciplinary Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Internet of Things (IoT) Groups. She represents and advises technology companies, content distributors…

Jennifer Johnson is a partner specializing in communications, media and technology matters who serves as Co-Chair of Covington’s Technology Industry Group and its global and multi-disciplinary Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Internet of Things (IoT) Groups. She represents and advises technology companies, content distributors, television companies, trade associations, and other entities on a wide range of media and technology matters. Jennifer has three decades of experience advising clients in the communications, media and technology sectors, and has held leadership roles in these practices for more than twenty years. On technology issues, she collaborates with Covington’s global, multi-disciplinary team to assist companies navigating the complex statutory and regulatory constructs surrounding this evolving area, including product counseling and technology transactions related to connected and autonomous vehicles, internet connected devices, artificial intelligence, smart ecosystems, and other IoT products and services. Jennifer serves on the Board of Editors of The Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law.

Jennifer assists clients in developing and pursuing strategic business and policy objectives before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Congress and through transactions and other business arrangements. She regularly advises clients on FCC regulatory matters and advocates frequently before the FCC. Jennifer has extensive experience negotiating content acquisition and distribution agreements for media and technology companies, including program distribution agreements, network affiliation and other program rights agreements, and agreements providing for the aggregation and distribution of content on over-the-top app-based platforms. She also assists investment clients in structuring, evaluating, and pursuing potential investments in media and technology companies.

Read more about Jennifer Johnson
Show more Show less
Photo of Robert Huffman Robert Huffman

Bob Huffman counsels government contractors on emerging technology issues, including artificial intelligence (AI), cybersecurity, and software supply chain security, that are currently affecting federal and state procurement. His areas of expertise include the Department of Defense (DOD) and other agency acquisition regulations governing…

Bob Huffman counsels government contractors on emerging technology issues, including artificial intelligence (AI), cybersecurity, and software supply chain security, that are currently affecting federal and state procurement. His areas of expertise include the Department of Defense (DOD) and other agency acquisition regulations governing information security and the reporting of cyber incidents, the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program, the requirements for secure software development self-attestations and bills of materials (SBOMs) emanating from the May 2021 Executive Order on Cybersecurity, and the various requirements for responsible AI procurement, safety, and testing currently being implemented under President Trump’s AI Executive Order. 

Bob also represents contractors in False Claims Act (FCA) litigation and investigations involving cybersecurity and other technology compliance issues, as well more traditional government contracting costs, quality, and regulatory compliance issues. These investigations include significant parallel civil/criminal proceedings growing out of the Department of Justice’s Cyber Fraud Initiative. They also include investigations resulting from False Claims Act qui tam lawsuits and other enforcement proceedings. Bob has represented clients in over a dozen FCA qui tam suits.

Bob also regularly counsels clients on government contracting supply chain compliance issues, including those arising under the Buy American Act/Trade Agreements Act and Section 889 of the FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act. In addition, Bob advises government contractors on rules relating to IP, including government patent rights, technical data rights, rights in computer software, and the rules applicable to IP in the acquisition of commercial products, services, and software. He focuses this aspect of his practice on the overlap of these traditional government contracts IP rules with the IP issues associated with the acquisition of AI services and the data needed to train the large learning models on which those services are based. 

Bob is ranked by Chambers USA for his work in government contracts and he writes extensively in the areas of procurement-related AI, cybersecurity, software security, and supply chain regulation. He also teaches a course at Georgetown Law School that focuses on the technology, supply chain, and national security issues associated with energy and climate change.

Read more about Robert Huffman
Show more Show less
Photo of Matthew Shapanka Matthew Shapanka

Matthew Shapanka practices at the intersection of law, policy, and politics. He advises clients before Congress, state legislatures, and government agencies, helping businesses to navigate complex legislative, regulatory, and investigations matters, mitigate their legal, political, and reputational risks, and capture business opportunities.

Drawing…

Matthew Shapanka practices at the intersection of law, policy, and politics. He advises clients before Congress, state legislatures, and government agencies, helping businesses to navigate complex legislative, regulatory, and investigations matters, mitigate their legal, political, and reputational risks, and capture business opportunities.

Drawing on more than 15 years of experience on Capitol Hill and in private practice, state government, and political campaigns, Matt develops and executes complex, multifaceted public policy initiatives for clients seeking actions by Congress, state legislatures, and federal and state government agencies. He regularly counsels and represents businesses in legislative and regulatory matters involving intellectual property, national security, regulation of critical and emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, connected and autonomous vehicles, and other tech policy issues. He also represents clients facing congressional investigations or inquiries across a range of committees and subject matters.

Matt rejoined Covington after serving as Chief Counsel for the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, where he advised Chairwoman Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) on all legal, policy, and oversight matters before the Committee, particularly federal election and campaign finance law, Federal Election Commission nominations, and oversight of the legislative branch. Most significantly, Matt led the Committee’s staff work on the Electoral Count Reform Act – a landmark bipartisan law that updates the procedures for certifying and counting votes in presidential elections—and the Committee’s bipartisan joint investigation (with the Homeland Security Committee) into the security planning and response to the January 6th attack.

Both in Congress and at Covington, Matt has prepared dozens of corporate and nonprofit executives, academics, government officials, and presidential nominees for testimony at congressional committee hearings and depositions. He is a skilled legislative drafter who has composed dozens of bills and amendments introduced in Congress and state legislatures, including several that have been enacted into law across multiple policy areas. Matt also leads the firm’s state policy practice, advising clients on complex multistate legislative and regulatory matters and managing state-level advocacy efforts.

In addition to his policy work, Matt advises and represents clients on the full range of political law compliance and enforcement matters involving federal election, campaign finance, lobbying, and government ethics laws, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s “Pay-to-Play” rule, and the election and political laws of states and municipalities across the country.

Before law school, Matt served in the administration of former Governor Deval Patrick (D-MA) as a research analyst in the Massachusetts Recovery & Reinvestment Office, where he worked on policy, communications, and compliance matters for federal economic recovery funding awarded to the state. He has also staffed federal, state, and local political candidates in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Read more about Matthew Shapanka
Show more Show less
Photo of August Gweon August Gweon

August Gweon counsels national and multinational companies on new regulatory frameworks governing artificial intelligence, robotics, and other emerging technologies, digital services, and digital infrastructure. August leverages his AI and technology policy experiences to help clients understand AI industry developments, emerging risks, and policy…

August Gweon counsels national and multinational companies on new regulatory frameworks governing artificial intelligence, robotics, and other emerging technologies, digital services, and digital infrastructure. August leverages his AI and technology policy experiences to help clients understand AI industry developments, emerging risks, and policy and enforcement trends. He regularly advises clients on AI governance, risk management, and compliance under data privacy, consumer protection, safety, procurement, and platform laws.

August’s practice includes providing comprehensive advice on U.S. state and federal AI policies and legislation, including the Colorado AI Act and state laws regulating automated decision-making technologies, AI-generated content, generative AI systems and chatbots, and foundation models. He also assists clients in assessing risks and compliance under federal and state privacy laws like the California Privacy Rights Act, responding to government inquiries and investigations, and engaging in AI public policy advocacy and rulemaking.

Read more about August GweonAugust's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less