Insights

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) recently released draft guidelines for applying NIST’s Cybersecurity Framework to organizations adopting artificial intelligence. NIST requests public comments on its “Initial Preliminary Draft” Cybersecurity Framework Profile for Artificial Intelligence (the “Cyber AI Profile”) by midnight on January 30, 2026. 

In an important first, the yearly defense policy law, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2026, directs the Department of Defense (DoD)  to develop and implement a framework addressing the cybersecurity and physical security of artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies (AI/ML) acquired by the Pentagon.

The California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) is intensifying its oversight of data brokers with a new dedicated Data Broker Enforcement Strike Force within its Enforcement Division. The strike force will monitor and investigate data brokers’ compliance with their legal obligations under California’s Delete Act and the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”).

Earlier this month, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Swiss Automation Inc., an Illinois-based precision machining company, agreed to pay $421,234 to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by inadequately protecting technical drawings for parts delivered to Department of Defense (DoD) prime contractors.  This settlement reflects DOJ's persistent emphasis on cybersecurity compliance across all levels of the defense industrial base, reaching beyond prime contractors to encompass subcontractors and smaller suppliers.  The settlement is also a reminder to all contractors not to overlook the often confusing relationship between Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) and export-controlled information.

On December 18, 2025, the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (FY 2026 NDAA) (P.L. 119-60) was signed into law. The Act makes significant changes to defense acquisition, sourcing restrictions, and interactions between the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) and the Department of Defense (DOD). 

In July 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order (EO) 14319, Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government, to preclude the federal government from procuring artificial intelligence (AI) models that incorporate “ideological biases or social agendas,” including “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” The EO mandates that the federal government purchase only large language models (LLMs) developed according to two “Unbiased AI Principles” — that they be “truth-seeking” and show “ideological neutrality.” To implement these principles, the EO directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue guidance.

On December 11, 2025, President Trump signed a much-anticipated Executive Order that seeks to forestall state regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) by threatening federal lawsuits and the withholding of some federal funds and calls for a national policy framework on AI. The Executive Order, Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (EO), declares it the policy of the administration “to sustain and enhance the United States’ global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI.”

President Trump is preparing to sign an Executive Order that would seek to forestall state regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) by threatening federal lawsuits and the withholding of some federal funds. The draft, unsigned six-page Executive Order, “Eliminating State Law Obstruction of National AI Policy” (EO), the text of which has been circulating publicly since November 19, would declare it the policy of the Administration “to sustain and enhance America’s global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome, uniform national policy framework for AI.”

Last year, the California General Assembly passed the California AI Transparency Act (CAITA), which Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law on September 19, 2024, and goes into effect on January 1, 2026. This may change because this year, the same General Assembly passed AB 853, an amendment to CAITA with potentially far-reaching implications.

Marking a significant milestone toward the broad deployment of commercial drones over American skies, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) and Transportation Security Administration issued a proposed rule in August that would streamline how drones can operate when they fly beyond the visual line of sight of their operators.

On September 30, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Georgia Tech Research Corporation (GTRC) agreed to pay $875,000 to settle allegations that it violated the False Claims Act (FCA) and federal common law by failing to meet cybersecurity requirements under certain Air Force and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) contracts.  The settlement adds to the growing list of recoveries under DOJ’s Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative and is yet another example of DOJ’s ongoing enforcement focus on cybersecurity obligations for federal contractors handling sensitive government information.  The settlement also provides insight into how government contractors may challenge FCA liability when faced with allegations of cybersecurity noncompliance.

On September 26, the White House invited the public to submit comments on Federal laws, rules, and policies that “unnecessarily hinder” the development or deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in the United States. This request marks one of the Trump Administration’s most substantial moves yet to reduce the regulatory burden on AI. Respondents may submit comments through a government website until October 27, 2025.

On September 10, 2025, the Department of Defense (DoD) published a final rule (CMMC Clause Rule) that will apply its much-anticipated Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification program (CMMC) to DoD contractors and subcontractors. Under the CMMC Clause Rule, starting on November 10, 2025, DoD can include CMMC requirements—potentially including third-party cybersecurity assessments—in contracts that require the handling of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) or Federal Contract Information (FCI).

On July 31, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Illumina, Inc. will pay $9.8 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by selling genomic sequencing systems with software containing cybersecurity vulnerabilities to federal agencies. This is the first FCA settlement involving claims that a medical manufacturer failed to incorporate adequate product cybersecurity into its software design and development.The allegations were first made in United States ex rel. Lenore v. Illumina Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00372 (D.R.I.), a qui tam action filed by Illumina’s former Director for Platform Management, On-Market Portfolio in September 2023. The relator alleged that, between February 2016 and September 2023, Illumina knowingly sold genomic sequencing systems to government agencies without adequate security programs or quality systems to identify and address software vulnerabilities. The complaint further alleged that Illumina failed to properly resource personnel and processes responsible for product security, did not remediate design features introducing cybersecurity risks, and misrepresented the software’s adherence to required cybersecurity standards.According to the government, Illumina’s actions included:

The U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) reprieve on civil enforcement of its Data Security Program (DSP), which imposes sweeping restrictions on bulk data transfers by U.S. entities to certain “countries of concern” and “covered persons,” is set to expire on July 8, 2025.

The flow of data across borders is essential to our global economy. As companies grow more and more dependent on cross-border data transfers to conduct business, two parallel legal trends have emerged:

On June 6, 2025 President Trump signed an Executive Order, Sustaining Select Efforts to Strengthen the Nation’s Cybersecurity and Amending Executive Order 13694 and Executive Order 14144 (the “Trump Cyber EO”). The Trump Cyber EO rescinds and modifies select Biden administration guidance from EO 14144 covering several cybersecurity regimes, including digital identity verification, artificial intelligence, and secure software development practices, and it amends Obama administration guidance from EO 13694 authorizing sanctions on persons involved in malicious cyber activities. We have provided a summary of significant changes made by the Trump Cyber EO below.

On April 11, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued guidance regarding the implementation and enforcement of the newly enacted final rule, “Preventing Access to U.S. Sensitive Personal Data and Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern or Covered Persons,” now referred to as the Data Security Program (DSP). The release included an Implementation and Enforcement Policy, a Compliance Guide, and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). Collectively, these documents are designed to help entities subject to the DSP understand and comply with the obligations set out under the Final Rule.

On March 12, 2025, the Government of Canada announced plans to launch the Canadian Program for Cyber Security Certification (CPCSC). CPCSC is a cybersecurity compliance verification program that aims to protect sensitive unclassified government information handled by Canadian government contractors and subcontractors within Canada’s defense sector. Canada will roll out CPCSC to contractors in four phases, with the first phase launching this month.

On March 24, 2025, the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) unveiled “FedRAMP 20x,” a proposal to make FedRAMP more efficient by automating FedRAMP security assessments and continuous monitoring, simplifying required technical controls, and leaning on industry to provide tooling and solutions to support automation.