# Washington negotiates voluntary AI rules, a necessary gamble > Introduction: frontier AI enters the era of negotiated rules - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Editorial - Published: 2026-07-04 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/washington-negocie-des-normes-ia-volontaires-un-pari-necessaire ## Introduction: frontier AI enters the era of negotiated rules ### A voluntary framework taking shape According to the **Financial Times**, the **White House** is currently negotiating with **OpenAI**, **Google**, and **Anthropic** a voluntary framework meant to govern the release of **artificial intelligence models** deemed "frontier," with an announcement possible as early as next week according to information relayed by **Reuters**. This project builds on the **presidential executive order** of **June 2, 2026**, titled "Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security," through which **Donald Trump** had already directed federal agencies to build an evaluation process for models before public release. The new framework under negotiation would set precise **testing criteria** and **review timelines**, one more step toward concretely structuring a process that had remained vague in its application, despite the order having been published a month earlier. ### Why this moment matters This project comes as the American administration has already, in practice, asked **OpenAI** to delay the public release of its **GPT-5.6** model, and as **Anthropic** saw its most advanced models, **Claude Mythos** and **Fable 5**, temporarily blocked by **export controls** before being partially restored in late June, according to **CNN**. *I think this long-awaited clarification is good news in itself: a framework that remained vague, applied case by case with no public criteria, risked producing an arbitrary system where every company had to guess the rules of the game.* ## The June 2 order, foundation of the new framework ### What the presidential text already provides The order signed by **Donald Trump** on **June 2, 2026** establishes a voluntary mechanism by which developers of **frontier models** can give the federal government secure access for **30 days** before sharing their systems with trusted partners, according to the text published by the **White House**. The order explicitly specifies that it creates **no mandatory licensing regime** for the development or release of new models. A **classified referral process**, under the responsibility of the **NSA** director, is meant to determine which models reach the threshold of "covered frontier model," a threshold that remains publicly undefined as of this writing, according to legal analysis from the firm **Crowell & Moring**. ### An implementation several observers call confusing The outlet **The Hill** reports that the request made to **OpenAI** and **Anthropic** to delay their models has created confusion, with some critics noting that no one, including within the administration itself, seems to know precisely what safety standards a company must meet to get a green light for wide release. *I believe this gray zone, however frustrating for the companies involved, remains preferable to the total absence of oversight that previously prevailed over technologies whose strategic reach now extends well beyond the private sector alone.* ## What the new voluntary framework could change ### Clearer testing criteria According to the **Financial Times**, the new standards under negotiation would set **technical benchmarks** for advanced models along with precise **timelines**, while clarifying who can access these systems in the **United States** and abroad. This clarification would directly answer criticism voiced in recent weeks over the process's opacity. **Google** is also reportedly in talks with the government ahead of releasing its own **advanced coding models**, whose cybersecurity capabilities are said to exceed those of previous generations, according to the British newspaper. ### A delicate balance between security and competitiveness The challenge for Washington is to establish **safeguards** sufficient to prevent the **cybersecurity** and **biosecurity** risks associated with the most powerful models, without slowing American innovation amid increasingly fierce international competition, notably from **China**. *I think the West doesn't have the luxury of choosing between security and speed: it must deliver both at once, since every month of poorly calibrated regulatory delay directly benefits Chinese labs, which feel no such scruples about racing ahead unencumbered by these precautions.* ## Tensions between labs and regulators ### OpenAI and the GPT-5.6 case **OpenAI** announced last week that it would present its new **GPT-5.6** model, including the **Sol**, **Terra**, and **Luna** variants, only to a "small group of trusted partners" before any public rollout, at the request of the American administration and for **cybersecurity** reasons, according to **TechCrunch**. CEO **Sam Altman** reportedly told employees that the government would "approve access client by client" during the preview period. This situation concretely illustrates how the **presidential order** is already playing out in practice, well before the new voluntary standards framework currently under negotiation is even finalized. ### Anthropic and the export-control precedent The **Anthropic** case illustrates the limits of the current system: its **Claude Mythos** and **Fable 5** models were hit by **export controls** for several weeks before the **Commerce Department** lifted the restrictions in late June, following joint work on risk assessment, according to **CNN** and Commerce Secretary **Howard Lutnick**. *I see in this Anthropic episode proof that the system works, even imperfectly: a problem was identified, addressed, and resolved through cooperation rather than confrontation, exactly the kind of process a more formalized framework should be able to reproduce faster in the future.* ## The comparison with the Biden era ### A voluntary precedent that already existed in 2023 The idea of voluntary AI standards isn't entirely new: in **July 2023**, the **Biden** administration had already secured non-binding commitments from seven major companies, including **Amazon**, **Google**, **Meta**, **Microsoft**, and **OpenAI**, covering in particular external safety testing before release, according to **Politico** and the **American National Standards Institute**. This precedent shows that the logic of voluntarism runs through successive American administrations, regardless of political affiliation, proof that the question extends well beyond the usual partisan divides. ### What sets the current approach apart Unlike the largely symbolic 2023 framework, the **2026** order comes with concrete enforcement mechanisms, notably through the **NIST**'s **Center for AI Standards and Innovation**, which is already conducting pre-deployment evaluations with major American labs, according to **The GPU Trade**. *I think this difference in rigor, between a token commitment in 2023 and a real technical evaluation mechanism in 2026, marks a welcome maturation in how Washington approaches AI governance.* ## The geopolitical stakes behind the regulation ### The AI race as a field of strategic rivalry The June order was initially delayed by concerns over its potential impact on **American competitiveness** against **China**, according to **The Hill**, a reminder that AI regulation cannot be considered independently of the broader technological rivalry between major powers. The order also explicitly plans to strengthen national **cyberdefense** capabilities and ease access to **defensive AI tools** for critical infrastructure, from rural hospitals to community banks. ### Why the West must stay ahead This technological race is not merely a commercial matter: it directly shapes the balance of power between the **West** and its strategic rivals, chief among them **China**, which is investing massively in its own artificial intelligence capabilities without the same transparency constraints. *I remain convinced that America's advantage in artificial intelligence is one of the most valuable pillars of Western power today, and that a well-calibrated standards framework, neither too lax nor too rigid, is precisely what will preserve it over the long run.* ## Persistent criticism and gray areas ### Vagueness over decision criteria Several analysts, including commentator **Ball** cited by **The Hill**, note that "literally no one knows" what safety standards a company must meet to get authorization for wide release of its models, a vagueness that, in practice, amounts to systematic refusal until criteria are formalized. This uncertainty weighs directly on the planning of AI labs, which must navigate shifting requirements with no clear visibility into timelines or final approval criteria. ### Transparency still insufficient, according to some experts Critical voices, including within the companies concerned, are calling for the publication of testing criteria, the list of trusted partners, and some form of recourse in case of disagreement, all elements still absent from the current setup according to several specialized legal analyses. *I think these criticisms are well-founded and deserve to be heard: a voluntary framework can only function durably if it rests on public, predictable rules — otherwise it risks turning into a mere informal power struggle between Washington and the major labs.* ## What tech companies expect next ### A shared call for predictability **OpenAI** and **Anthropic** have both advocated for a **federal framework** establishing clear safeguards around the highest AI risks, while diverging on how large a role government should play in the development process itself, according to **The Hill**. This shared demand for **predictability** reflects a simple industrial reality: labs prefer binding but known-in-advance rules over an unpredictable approval process that delays their launch timelines without public justification. ### The promise of a repeatable process According to **TechCrunch**, **OpenAI** has already said it wants to work with the administration to establish a **repeatable process** for future model releases, a way of turning a one-off, constrained experience into a standardized mechanism applicable across the entire industry. *I think this stated desire to build a repeatable process, rather than endure case-by-case decisions, is the most encouraging sign in this entire sequence: exactly the kind of structured cooperation the West needs to stay competitive without sacrificing safety.* ## Conclusion: an imperfect framework, but a necessary direction ### A welcome clarification despite the gray areas The voluntary framework under negotiation between the **White House**, **OpenAI**, **Google**, and **Anthropic** represents a serious attempt to structure a technological field whose rapid evolution far outpaces the ability of traditional institutions to regulate it effectively and on time. It remains to be seen whether the expected announcement in coming days will finally bring the clarity companies are demanding, or whether it will simply formalize a status quo already widely criticized for its opacity. ### What the West stands to lose or gain As **China** continues to invest massively in its own artificial intelligence capabilities, America's ability to establish a framework that is both safe and flexible enough to preserve innovation will prove decisive for the global technological balance of the years ahead. *I close this editorial convinced that an imperfect but transparent framework is always better than permanent improvisation, and that the West's future credibility in the AI race will largely depend on its ability to get this clarification done quickly and well.* **By Maxime Marquette, columnist** ## Columnist's transparency note ### Editorial stance I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies. I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events. ### Method and sources This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here. **Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies. **Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations. When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**. ### Nature of the analysis The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted. My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors. This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text. ## Sources ### Primary sources - [The White House, "Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security" order — June 2, 2026](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/06/promoting-advanced-artificial-intelligence-innovation-and-security/) - [U.S. News/Reuters, Washington in talks with AI companies over voluntary standards — July 1, 2026](https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2026-07-01/us-in-talks-with-ai-companies-for-voluntary-model-standards-ft-reports) - [TechCrunch, White House asks OpenAI to slow the rollout of its new model — June 25, 2026](https://techcrunch.com/2026/06/25/the-white-house-is-asking-openai-to-slow-roll-the-release-of-its-new-model-over-safety-concerns/) ### Secondary sources - [The Hill, confusion reigns over the White House's AI policy — July 2, 2026](https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5948098-trump-openai-ai-policy-confusion/) - [CNN, White House lifts export controls on Anthropic's models — June 30, 2026](https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/30/tech/anthropic-export-control-ban-lifted-white-house) - [Crowell & Moring, legal analysis of the frontier AI models order — June 3, 2026](https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/executive-order-creates-voluntary-regulatory-regime-of-frontier-ai-models) --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/washington-negocie-des-normes-ia-volontaires-un-pari-necessaire