Trump's AI order gives small banks access to new AI models

President Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday requiring AI companies to submit 'frontier models'—large-scale, general-purpose systems such as OpenAI’s GPT and Anthropic’s Claude—for government review 30 days before public release. The order frames advanced AI as a national security priority, emphasizing coordinated action across federal agencies to mitigate threats while accelerating deployment of secure technology. The directive also expands access to AI-driven cybersecurity tools for underserved sectors, including community banks, rural hospitals, and local utilities, addressing concerns that larger institutions might gain early advantages. Community bankers had previously raised alarms about vulnerabilities like Mythos, and the order aligns with their proposed AI action plan, which advocates for AI-ready workforces, modernized security, and a voluntary clearinghouse for vulnerability coordination. The Treasury Department, in collaboration with the National Cyber Director, Secretary of War, and Secretary of Homeland Security, will establish this clearinghouse to centralize vulnerability scanning, validation, and patch distribution for critical infrastructure. The Attorney General is tasked with enforcing federal laws against AI-enabled cybercrimes, including unauthorized data breaches or system intrusions. Critics from the International Center for Law & Economics praised the order’s voluntary approach, avoiding mandatory licensing while still promoting defensive AI deployment. However, they cautioned that the framework could inadvertently favor established firms, slow innovation, or allow future administrations excessive influence over developers. The center’s Director of Innovation Policy, Kristian Stout, noted concerns about potential surveillance overreach or delays in releasing essential defensive tools. Some tech industry leaders, like Mark Montgomery of Kyield, dismissed voluntary compliance as performative, arguing it lacks teeth to ensure meaningful security standards. The order’s balance between regulation and innovation remains a point of contention, with stakeholders divided over whether it strikes the right equilibrium or risks leaving critical gaps in oversight.