Despite media reports, the idea of an "FDA for AI" that pre-approves models is not supported by key policy advisors. Insiders stress the goal is industry coordination to harden government systems against AI threats, not to create a Washington-based approval bottleneck that would kill innovation.

After industry pushback, the White House has clarified it is not pursuing a new, FDA-style bureaucracy for AI model approval. Instead, the administration is focusing on direct, ongoing collaboration with major AI labs to mitigate extreme risks before models are released, favoring a flexible partnership over rigid regulation.

By applying export controls—a tool for military hardware—to a consumer-facing AI model, the government set a new, unpredictable standard. This blunt instrument makes any AI company vulnerable to having its products instantly restricted based on political whims rather than a clear regulatory process, spooking the entire industry.

The two-week review and subsequent relaunch of Anthropic's Fable 5 model demonstrates that the US government's approach to AI safety is not a clear, fixed set of rules. Instead, it's a subjective, case-by-case negotiation process, creating an opaque and potentially unstable framework that introduces significant uncertainty for future frontier model releases.

The vocabulary of AI safety and regulation (e.g., 'national security threats,' 'autonomy risk') is so ambiguous that a power-hungry government could easily abuse it. Any AI model that refuses government orders, such as for mass surveillance, could be labeled an 'autonomy risk' and shut down, creating a pre-built tool for despotism.

The White House is delaying models like GPT 5.6 through an informal, non-transparent process, approving access customer-by-customer. This arbitrary system, described as an "ad hoc licensing regime," is considered more damaging than predictable red tape because it creates immense uncertainty for developers and businesses.

Instead of establishing clear regulations, the White House is intervening directly in AI rollouts, limiting access to new models like OpenAI's on a case-by-case basis due to national security. This high-touch approach gives the government immense control but creates uncertainty and is viewed by some safety advocates as a 'worst of both worlds' scenario.

The resolution between Anthropic and the Commerce Department is an isolated agreement specific to that company and does not apply to OpenAI, Google, or others. This sets a precedent for bespoke, opaque deals between individual AI labs and the government, creating an unstable and unequal environment for model releases.

The government is imposing export controls and release requirements on AI labs without a clear legal framework. Unlike the crypto era's lawsuits, which provided detailed complaints, this "regulation by enforcement" operates without published rules, creating extreme uncertainty for AI companies.