Sources: the US' AI framework excludes open models and defines a covered frontier model as closed source with SOTA capabilities and national security risks

The White House is excluding open models from its framework to test advanced AI capabilities, sources familiar with the matter told Axios.

Axios 2026-08-05 Maria Curi

Context & Ripple Effects

The reported scope draws a sharper line within an administration effort that had considered a more interventionist stance toward open-source AI before prioritizing the competitiveness of US models. It also sits beside a plan to share voluntary-framework details only with participating companies, limiting early visibility into how the line will be applied.

The exclusion of open models contrasts with separate administration efforts to revive de facto restrictions on foreign open-source models. That distinction matters: model openness is not being treated as a single policy category across testing, competition, and access.

First-order effects

Closed-source developers whose state-of-the-art systems are judged to pose national-security risks become the framework's covered population for advanced-capability testing.
Open-model developers are reportedly excluded from that testing framework, creating an immediate difference in treatment between open and closed releases.

Second-order effects

Companies included in the voluntary process gain earlier operational clarity than developers outside it because the White House reportedly will not publish the framework's details broadly.
Closed-model providers face a stronger incentive to shape how their capabilities and risks are assessed, while open-model providers have less reason to align releases with this particular testing regime.

Third-order effects

If maintained, the split would establish a two-track US AI-governance model: frontier closed systems receive capability-focused scrutiny while open models are addressed through separate competitiveness and access policies.
The framework adds to a broader policy architecture in which access to models, rather than AI as a uniform category, becomes a tool of national-security and industrial policy.

The trend: US AI policy is moving toward differentiated governance of model access and deployment, with closed frontier systems singled out for national-security oversight.

Discussion

@chrisrmcguire Chris McGuire on x
As soon as there is a major security incident involving an open-weight model—which very clearly will happen at some point—this obviously bad decision will get reversed. It's very unfortunate that our plan is to wait for that to happen, rather than proactively testing open models.
@mikeisaac Rat King on x
the Trump admin AI framework will not require a security review of open source models, at least for now the White House is not making it public despite months of discussions with leading tech companies story w @dmccabe @AnaSwanson @kateconger https://www.nytimes.com/...
@deredleritt3r Prinz on x
A “covered model” subject to the voluntary USG approval framework is basically whatever the USG says it is. It must be “state-of-the-art” (not defined) and present “national security risks” (not defined). The only clear-cut rule is that open-source models are excluded, and [image…
@zeffmax Max Zeff on x
The Trump admin's stance on AI continues to be a wild ride. I think this framework is a step in the right direction, but clearly they're balancing a lot of competing factions. https://www.wired.com/...
@zeffmax Max Zeff on x
Axios and other have reported that open models are not included in the framework, but it's pretty unclear what exactly IS included. Also, it feels a bit contradictory to say this is all voluntary, but purposefully exclude certain categories that don't need to get tested.
@hamandcheese Samuel Hammond on x
No definition of SOTA or relevant risk thresholds. No employee access during the 30 day review period. Models stored in “high-security environments” with access logs. WTF [image]
@kevinbankston Kevin Bankston on x
This is so confusing. If an open model developer voluntarily submits for this supposedly voluntary testing regime, the government will refuse to test it?! Someone make this make sense!
@eswarpr @eswarpr on x
Would love folks closer to the government policy world like @sriramkri and @stevesi to chime in on whether this new AI framework is truly a hands-off approach to open models. Are they saying (by not saying) that once model weights are out, there's no putting the genie back in
NewsMax.com Jim Thomas on x
Trump AI Review Plan to Stay Secret
@garymarcus Gary Marcus on x
Secrecy is probably the worst choice they could make.
@neil_chilson Neil Chilson on x
A secret process by which the government gets early access to cutting edge AI — what could go wrong? There may be good reason to classify the benchmark used to test those models. There is no good reason to hide how the program works...Secrecy invites abuse. The rules will shif…
@americans4ri @americans4ri on x
Any framework for overseeing advanced AI models should be public. This is not a handshake deal with tech companies. It's the rulebook for ensuring they don't endanger the public. If only tech companies know what's in the rulebook, it doesn't work. https://axios.com/...
@chrisrmcguire Chris McGuire on x
Reports that the US government won't publish its AI regulatory framework are baffling. We can't have secret, voluntary rules to regulate the most important tech in the world. Also does it even apply to Chinese/third-country/open-weight models deployed in the US? That's crucial!
@theobearman Theo Bearman on x
This is a big disappointment. If nothing else, the public now won't know whether the framework was extended to include internal models and incident reporting, both of which would have been hugely welcome in the wake of the OpenAI/Hugging Face incident.
@repcasar Congressman Greg Casar on x
Unacceptable. https://x.com/...
@blancheminerva Stella Biderman on x
Backroom deals for how the threat of advanced AI models are going to be judged is anti-democratic and makes the world a more dangerous place.
@_nathancalvin Nathan Calvin on x
Well looks like we finally have the answers to these questions about what is in the WH framework (pictured below /s). Can anyone provide a remotely defensible reason why even the definition for covered model should be confidential? [image]
@robertwrighter Robert Wright on x
This shouldn't be acceptable. Constraining the government's ability to abuse its regulatory control of AI is one of the great emerging policy challenges. If there's no strong congressional pushback on this, that will be a bad sign.
@nickadobos Nick Dobos on x
The government controls AI But won't tell you how Terrifying This is most dangerous thing to ever occur in the history of the world 10000x more dangerous than nuclear bombs, rogue AI's hacking things or drone armies Trump controls your thinking & the frontier of all science
@chrisgpt Chris on x
A lot of people confuse this framework with the 30 day voluntary model check that was released June 2nd This framework has not yet been completed and I don't think it'll affect the GPT 6 release.
@nkrosse Nick Krosse on x
This is concerning. By only inviting certain companies to participate, it implies that the process is not actually voluntary. Furthermore, keeping other companies and stakeholders in the dark means the government is picking winners and losers, not only for developers of frontier …
@reploritrahan Lori Trahan on x
The White House has created a framework that shapes access to the most advanced AI models. It's disappointing that they have chosen to block its public release. Clearly some of this work touches real security concerns, but we should all be worried about the prospect of our
@zackkorman Zack Korman on x
Not at all what regulatory capture looks like... [image]
@kevintfrazier Kevin Frazier on x
You can agree that there's a need for AI testing and howl that a voluntary, secret framework flies in the face of the rule of law. [image]
@adamthierer Adam Thierer on x
Welcome to the age of the AI Star Chamber closed-door decision-making secret standards no transparency no check on power 👎
@masnick.com Mike Masnick on bluesky
My (cynical) working theory is that the White House knows that its “AI Framework” is basically a much worse version than the AI framework the Biden admin released, which caused the VC bros of Silicon Valley to go all MAGA. Keeping it private avoids the comparison. [embedded pos…
@marypcbuk Mary Branscombe on bluesky
voluntary and not even slightly transparent [embedded post]
@daniloc.xyz @daniloc.xyz on bluesky
“the press is asking questions about my voluntary AI framework which are answered in secret by being a plutocrat” [embedded post]
r/singularity r on reddit
[Reuters] Trump advisers tell AI firms they will not safety-test open-weight models
@clementdelangue Clem on x
Some people are surprised that APIs (aka what Anthropic, OpenAI, and others provide) are treated differently than open weights in the new AI model framework. I'm not surprised at all, and it's actually very good policy. Let me explain: Model weights, APIs, and apps are three [ima…
r/politics r on reddit
The White House Is Keeping Its AI Cybersecurity Framework Secret
@petereharrell Peter Harrell on x
Apparently, closed source AI model companies will “have to voluntarily” submit the models for testing before release. Is “have to voluntarily” voluntary, or not? [image]

Chronicles