This is part of an ongoing series of Covington blogs on the AI policies, executive orders, and other actions of the Trump Administration.  This blog describes AI actions taken by the Trump Administration in July 2025, and prior articles in this series are available here.

White House Issues AI Action Plan

On July 23, the White House released its 28-page AI Action Plan, which outlines dozens of AI policy priorities for “near-term execution by the Federal government” in order to “achieve the President’s vision of global AI dominance.”  The AI Action Plan, titled “Winning the Race: America’s AI Action Plan,” follows the submission of over 10,000 public comments in response to the White House’s February 6 Request for Information and fulfills the core requirement of President Trump’s January 23 Executive Order 14179 on “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence,” which directed White House officials to submit an action plan for achieving the Executive Order’s policy of “sustaining and enhancing America’s global AI dominance.”  As we discussed in a prior blog post, that Request for Information contained very little detail about the specifics of the administration’s plan and instead only listed broad categories of areas for public input.  This Action Plan now provides detail on the administration’s proposed approach.

The AI Action Plan organizes its 103 AI policy recommendations under the three pillars of (1) accelerating AI innovation, (2) building American AI infrastructure, and (3) leading in international AI diplomacy and security.  As detailed in our blog post, the AI Action Plan’s recommendations address a wide range of AI policy goals, including withholding federal AI-related funding from states with burdensome AI regulations, revising the NIST AI Risk Management Framework to “eliminate references to misinformation, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and climate change,” establishing regulatory sandboxes and public-private partnerships to promote AI adoption in healthcare and other critical sectors, permitting reforms to support the development of AI infrastructure, and various initiatives to encourage AI-related manufacturing. 

Notably, the AI Action Plan continues to emphasize the role of federal AI procurement as a core component of the Trump Administration’s AI agenda.  In order to “deliver the highly responsive government the American people expect and deserve,” the AI Action Plan calls on the federal government to accelerate federal AI adoption and use by:

  • Formalizing the role of the Chief AI Officer Council as the primary entity for interagency coordination and collaboration on AI adoption;
  • Creating a talent-exchange program to enable agencies to share personnel with AI expertise, such as data scientists and software engineers;
  • Creating an “AI procurement toolbox” to be spearheaded by the General Services Administration (“GSA”) to facilitate uniformity in federal adoption of AI models, and to allow federal agencies to choose among multiple models while complying with privacy, data governance, and transparency laws;
  • Implementing an “Advanced Technology Transfer and Capability Sharing Program” within GSA to facilitate the rapid transfer of advanced AI capabilities and use cases across agencies;
  • Requiring federal agencies to ensure that employees whose work could benefit from access to “frontier language models” are trained and able to use such models; and
  • Convening “agencies with High Impact Service Providers” to pilot uses of AI for improving the delivery of public services, under the auspices of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”).

In parallel, the AI Action Plan notes the potential of AI to “transform both the warfighting and back-office operations” of the Department of Defense (“DOD”).  To “aggressively adopt AI within its Armed Forces,” the AI Action Plan calls on DOD to (1) establish a DOD talent development program to meet the DOD’s AI workforce requirements; (2) establish an “AI & Autonomous Systems Virtual Proving Ground” within the DOD; (3) transition DOD “priority workflows” to AI-based automation; (4) prioritize DOD agreements with private entities that provide the DOD with priority access to computing resources in the event of a national emergency; and (5) developing an AI-specific curriculum and AI R&D initiatives in U.S. Senior Military Colleges.

At the same time, and consistent with President Trump’s Executive Order on “Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government” described below, the AI Action Plan recommends 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.”

President Trump Signs Series of AI Executive Orders

On July 23, President Trump signed three AI executive orders to implement the AI Action Plan’s recommendations related to AI infrastructure, “woke AI” and government procurement, and AI exports.

AI InfrastructureExecutive Order 14318 on “Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure” directs federal agencies to take various 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.  Executive Order 14318 directs the Department of Commerce to launch an initiative to provide financial support for qualifying projects; directs federal agencies to establish permitting exclusions, nationwide permits, and environmental waivers for qualifying projects; and directs the Departments of Interior, Energy, and Defense to identify federal sites for the construction of qualifying projects.  Additionally, Executive Order 14318 revokes the Biden Administration’s January 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.

Woke AI and Government Procurement.  While noting that the federal government “should be hesitant to regulate the functionality of AI models in the private marketplace,” Executive Order 14319 on “Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government” declares that the U.S. Government “has the obligation not to procure models that sacrifice truthfulness and accuracy to ideological agendas.”  Consistent with the AI Action Plan’s call to ensure that procured LLMs are “objective and free from top-down ideological bias,” Executive Order 14319 directs federal agencies to only procure LLMs that are developed in accordance with two “Unbiased AI Principles”:

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

Executive Order 14319 requires OMB to issue guidance to federal agencies on implementing the Unbiased AI Principles within 120 days, i.e., by November 20, 2025.  This OMB guidance must (1) account for “technical limitations” in complying with the Unbiased AI Principles, (2) permit vendors to comply with the “Ideological Neutrality” principle by disclosing LLM system prompts, specifications, evaluations, or other relevant documentation without disclosing model weights or sensitive technical data, (3) afford vendors “latitude” to comply with the Unbiased AI Principles and “take different approaches to innovation,” (4) specify the factors agencies should consider in assessing whether the Unbiased AI Principles should apply to LLMs developed by agencies or to AI models other than LLMs, and (5) provide exceptions for the use of LLMs in national security systems, as appropriate. 

Upon the issuance of the OMB guidance, federal agencies will be required to include, in any new or existing federal contracts for LLMs, terms that require the procured LLM to comply with the Unbiased AI Principles and to impose “decommissioning costs” on LLM vendors that fail to comply with the Unbiased AI Principles.  Federal agencies will also have 90 days after the issuance of the OMB guidance to adopt “procedures” to ensure that procured LLMs comply with the Unbiased AI Principles.

AI ExportsExecutive Order 14320 on “Promoting the Export of the American AI Technology Stack” establishes the U.S. policy of preserving and extending American leadership in AI and decreasing global dependence on AI technologies developed by U.S. adversaries 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. 

To these ends, Executive Order 14320 establishes an “American AI Exports Program” within the Department of Commerce to solicit and identify proposals for “priority AI export packages” submitted by an “industry-led consortia.”  Executive Order 14320 directs the Economic Diplomacy Action Group to support priority AI export packages selected through the American AI Exports Program through the “mobilization of Federal financing tools,” including direct loans and loan guarantees, equity investments, co-financing, political risk insurance, and credit guarantees, and technical assistance and feasibility studies.  Finally, Executive Order 14320 directs the Secretary of State to develop a national strategy for U.S. AI exports and identify technical and regulatory barriers that may impede U.S. AI competitiveness in partner countries, among other responsibilities.

Photo of Nooree Lee Nooree Lee

Nooree Lee represents government contractors in all aspects of the procurement process and focuses his practice on the regulatory aspects of M&A activity, procurements involving emerging technologies, and international contracting matters.

Nooree advises government contractors and financial investors regarding the regulatory aspects of…

Nooree Lee represents government contractors in all aspects of the procurement process and focuses his practice on the regulatory aspects of M&A activity, procurements involving emerging technologies, and international contracting matters.

Nooree advises government contractors and financial investors regarding the regulatory aspects of corporate transactions and restructurings. His experience includes preparing businesses for sale, negotiating deal documents, coordinating large-scale diligence processes, and navigating pre- and post-closing regulatory approvals and integration. He has advised on 40+ M&A deals involving government contractors totaling over $30 billion in combined value. This includes Veritas Capital’s acquisition of Cubic Corp. for $2.8 billion; the acquisition of Perspecta Inc. by Veritas Capital portfolio company Peraton for $7.1 billion; and Cameco Corporation’s strategic partnership with Brookfield Renewable Partners to acquire Westinghouse Electric Company for $7.8+ billion.

Nooree also counsels clients focused on delivering emerging technologies to public sector customers. Over the past several years, his practice has expanded to include advising on the intersection of government procurement and artificial intelligence. Nooree counsels clients on the negotiation of AI-focused procurement and non-procurement agreements with the U.S. government and the rollout of federal and state-level regulations impacting the procurement and deployment of AI solutions on behalf of government agencies.

Nooree also counsels clients navigating the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program and Foreign Military Financing (FMF) arrangements. Nooree has advised both U.S. and ex-U.S. companies in connection with defense sales to numerous foreign defense ministries, including those of Australia, Israel, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan.

Nooree maintains an active pro bono practice focusing on appeals of denied industrial security clearance applications and public housing and housing discrimination matters. In addition to his work within the firm, Nooree is an active member of the American Bar Association’s Section of Public Contract Law and has served on the Section Council and the Section’s Diversity Committee. He also served as the firm’s Fellow for the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity program in 2023.

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.

Photo of Ryan Burnette Ryan Burnette

Ryan Burnette is a government contracts and technology-focused lawyer that advises on federal contracting compliance requirements and on government and internal investigations that stem from these obligations. Ryan has particular experience with defense and intelligence contracting, as well as with cybersecurity, supply chain…

Ryan Burnette is a government contracts and technology-focused lawyer that advises on federal contracting compliance requirements and on government and internal investigations that stem from these obligations. Ryan has particular experience with defense and intelligence contracting, as well as with cybersecurity, supply chain, artificial intelligence, and software development requirements.

Ryan also advises on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) compliance, public policy matters, agency disputes, and government cost accounting, drawing on his prior experience in providing overall direction for the federal contracting system to offer insight on the practical implications of regulations. He has assisted industry clients with the resolution of complex civil and criminal investigations by the Department of Justice, and he regularly speaks and writes on government contracts, cybersecurity, national security, and emerging technology topics.

Ryan is especially experienced with:

Government cybersecurity standards, including the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP); DFARS 252.204-7012, DFARS 252.204-7020, and other agency cybersecurity requirements; National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) publications, such as NIST SP 800-171; and the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program.
Software and artificial intelligence (AI) requirements, including federal secure software development frameworks and software security attestations; software bill of materials requirements; and current and forthcoming AI data disclosure, validation, and configuration requirements, including unique requirements that are applicable to the use of large language models (LLMs) and dual use foundation models.
Supply chain requirements, including Section 889 of the FY19 National Defense Authorization Act; restrictions on covered semiconductors and printed circuit boards; Information and Communications Technology and Services (ICTS) restrictions; and federal exclusionary authorities, such as matters relating to the Federal Acquisition Security Council (FASC).
Information handling, marking, and dissemination requirements, including those relating to Covered Defense Information (CDI) and Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI).
Federal Cost Accounting Standards and FAR Part 31 allocation and reimbursement requirements.

Prior to joining Covington, Ryan served in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy in the Executive Office of the President, where he focused on the development and implementation of government-wide contracting regulations and administrative actions affecting more than $400 billion dollars’ worth of goods and services each year.  While in government, Ryan helped develop several contracting-related Executive Orders, and worked with White House and agency officials on regulatory and policy matters affecting contractor disclosure and agency responsibility determinations, labor and employment issues, IT contracting, commercial item acquisitions, performance contracting, schedule contracting and interagency acquisitions, competition requirements, and suspension and debarment, among others.  Additionally, Ryan was selected to serve on a core team that led reform of security processes affecting federal background investigations for cleared federal employees and contractors in the wake of significant issues affecting the program.  These efforts resulted in the establishment of a semi-autonomous U.S. Government agency to conduct and manage background investigations.

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.