The US government's delayed AI safety framework is being developed behind closed doors. By sharing physical drafts in briefings without allowing companies to keep them and keeping the benchmarking process classified, the White House is creating uncertainty and forcing companies to self-regulate in a vacuum.

The order's voluntary framework for pre-release model testing mirrors agreements major AI labs already have with the Department of Commerce. It reflects current industry behavior rather than imposing new, substantive regulations, failing to meet public calls for stronger government oversight.

The US government's new AI safety testing framework is secret, with details withheld even from uninvited AI companies. This approach prioritizes maximum flexibility for the government but creates 'minimum knowability' for the industry, hindering planning and fostering distrust.

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.

By developing its AI safety framework in closed-door meetings and restricting access to written details, the White House is creating a 'black box' system. Critics argue this lack of transparency actively damages public trust—the very thing the framework is supposed to build—and creates uncertainty even for participating labs.

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 U.S. government is not pursuing a single, heavy-handed regulatory regime. Instead, it favors a voluntary framework for most AI while implementing direct, pre-release oversight specifically for the most powerful "frontier" models to manage national security and intellectual property risks.

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.

The White House is expanding its safety framework to include open models not just for risk mitigation, but to avoid creating a two-tiered system. Officials fear that excluding open models would signal they are not 'approved,' disincentivizing enterprise adoption and harming US open-source labs. The framework is thus becoming a de facto certification.