AI Governance Gap
President Biden's executive orders on AI governance were rescinded, leaving a gap in federal regulation of law enforcement's use of AI
The absence of a comprehensive federal framework for artificial intelligence governance has created an AI governance gap, leaving states to navigate the complex issue of regulating AI-powered technologies, such as facial recognition, on their own. This gap was further exacerbated by the rescission of President Joseph R. Biden's executive orders on policing reform and AI governance at the start of the second Trump Administration, as noted in The Fourth Amendment Gap in the National AI Framework. The new framework advocates for a federal AI law that preempts state AI laws, yet it sets no federal floor for law enforcement's use of AI, leaving states that have restricted geofence warrants or paused facial recognition to face the prospect of preemption without any safeguards in place.
As a result, states are taking matters into their own hands, with some implementing their own regulations on AI-powered technologies, while others are exploring innovative solutions to counter the potential risks associated with these technologies, such as the use of clothes that can make individuals invisible to facial recognition. Meanwhile, countries like South Korea are introducing facial recognition for mobile activation to curb identity theft, as reported by The Elec Inc, which will mandate facial recognition authentication at the point of mobile phone activation starting July 6. This move highlights the need for a comprehensive framework to regulate the use of AI-powered technologies, as discussed in the 2026 Cyber Gap article.
The introduction of facial recognition for mobile activation in South Korea is not an isolated incident, as other countries are also exploring the use of biometric authentication, such as Singapore, which has added passkeys to Singpass to prevent phishing attacks. The passkey is tied to the official Singpass login domain and can be unlocked locally with facial recognition, fingerprint recognition, or a six-digit Singpass app passcode. This development underscores the importance of having a robust framework in place to regulate the use of AI-powered technologies, particularly in the context of SCOTUS Protects Location Data. Furthermore, the expiration of a key US law has left a significant gap in the regulatory landscape, as discussed in the US Law Expired article.
In response to these developments, the Maharashtra government in India has announced plans to set up an expert panel to frame standard operating procedures for AI use, aiming to contribute to the development of a national policy on AI governance. This move is a step in the right direction, as it acknowledges the need for a comprehensive framework to regulate the use of AI-powered technologies. However, more needs to be done to address the AI governance gap, particularly in the context of law enforcement's use of AI, which remains a pressing concern.
As I reflect on the current state of artificial intelligence, I firmly believe that the AI governance gap poses a significant threat to our collective future. My thesis is that without immediate attention and regulation, the unchecked development of AI will exacerbate existing social inequalities. If nothing changes, it is the tech giants and corporate interests that will ultimately win, as they continue to prioritize profits over people and exploit the lack of oversight to further their own agendas, leaving the rest of us to face the consequences of their unchecked power and influence.
Cross-reference independently — do not take our word for it.
Disclosure: NewsAnarchist uses AI-assisted reporting with web search. Always verify primary sources linked above.
This article is produced by NewsAnarchist's AI reporting system, not a human staff reporter. It's built from the primary source cited above (a company's own disclosure, a security researcher's published findings, a regulator's filing (FTC, EU data-protection authorities), or a data-breach notification) and reports what that source states, attributed to it — it is not security advice specific to your own devices or accounts, and does not verify a vendor's disputed claim beyond what the source states. Part of our Tech & Privacy hub. Found an error? Tell us.