Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., announced “The Secure and Accountable Military AI Act” on Tuesday. Other lawmakers have not joined the legislation, and her office confirmed she plans to offer elements of the bill as amendments to the Senate’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act. 

“Right now, the Pentagon is moving toward deploying incredibly powerful AI technology without commonsense guardrails in place, which could have catastrophic consequences that make all of us less safe,” Gillibrand said in an emailed statement. “We must act now – not to stifle technological progress, but to establish clear rules of the road that keep humans in charge and keep AI’s use in warfare smart and safe.”

NOTUS reported Tuesday that Sen. Elise Slotkin, D-Mich., plans to tuck a similar AI-guardrails bill, introduced earlier this year, into the NDAA. The Senate Armed Service Committee is slated to mark up the annual defense policy bill next week.

Americans' distrust in AI remains high compared to other countries,  which experts have said could have national-security implications. The bill follows the Defense Department quarrels with Anthropic earlier this year centered around the company’s objections to the potential use of its technology.

The same day Gillibrand proposed the safeguards, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for AI to be “deployed rapidly to confront any and all threats” to the United States.

“The United States continues to lead the world in Artificial Intelligence (AI) because of the enormous talent and innovation of our AI industry, and because we refuse to stifle this innovation with overly burdensome regulation,” Trump’s executive order said.

Gillibrand is asking Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to designate specific AI uses, such as nuclear missions, lethal targeting, domestic surveillance, and cyber as “high consequence,” which would require written approval from an undersecretary or the Joint Chiefs vice chairman, according to a summary of the bill. The senator is also requesting a 15-day notification to Congressional defense committees before using AI for those operations, or 48 hours after its deployment in certain circumstances.

The bill also asks the Pentagon to make it clear who the accountable human decision-maker is or what accountability chain exists for AI-guided technology use during high-consequence operations. 

Gillibrand wants to hold frontier AI companies more accountable, too. 

The bill asks for AI contractors to rapidly report certain incidents to the Pentagon “including theft of model weights or data poisoning,” according to a summary from the senator’s office. The Defense Department would need to be notified within three days for security breaches and seven days for concerning model behavior, if the provision becomes law. 

Becca Wasser, the defense lead for Bloomberg Economics, said setting forth guidelines will help AI companies focus on the best use cases, and set clear standards for future operations.

“In some ways it's not novel, but it is codifying things in many respects that have been long-standing norms, and now, as technology is maturating, as some of these private AI companies are becoming more and more enmeshed with the Pentagon, it is putting down on paper some of the core use cases for AI, and putting some potential stop gap measures in place,” Wasser said. “I think it might be a check on the Pentagon's full embrace of AI and private companies to ensure that when AI is used in current military operations, it is used in a responsible and professional way.”

The directive orders less federal oversight of AI models than an proposed version that was scuttled two weeks ago after industry complaints of overregulation.

The order encourages companies developing cutting-edge AI systems to give the federal government 30 days of pre-public access to those models, and limited early access for certain critical infrastructure operators. An earlier outline of the order viewed by Nextgov/FCW asked for 90 days' pre-public access.

The new version of the order also forbids federal agencies to impose licensing or preclearance requirements on AI products.

Another section of the order directs agencies to secure Defense Department and other national-security networks within 30 days. Another includes a binding operational directive to secure federal civilian networks and facilitate access to frontier AI models across critical infrastructure sectors, including hospitals, banks, utilities and state and local governments, which must also be issued within 30 days.

It also calls for the Treasury Department — with support from the Office of the National Cyber Director, the National Security Agency, the Department of Homeland Security and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency — to establish a voluntary coordination clearinghouse for the government, AI companies, and critical infrastructure operators. 

Additional provisions direct the Office of Management and Budget to identify federal grant funding that could support AI vulnerability-detection efforts within 30 days.

It also tasks the Office of Personnel Management with increasing cyber hiring via the U.S. Tech Force within 60 days. The Tech Force, launched in December to recruit cyber talent, had onboarded just 10 employees as of late Mau.

The directive also aims to establish a government framework for overseeing advanced AI systems, including the creation of a classified benchmarking process to determine which models qualify as “covered frontier models.” The order gives the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, CISA, and others 60 days to establish the classified evaluation process. 

The NSA, in consultation with those agencies, would then be tasked with formally determining which AI systems meet the threshold. The NSA’s involvement in these efforts was reported in May by Nextgov/FCW.

The Commerce secretary is tasked to help develop a classified AI benchmarking process that will inform the voluntary framework for AI developers. The order says the secretary will work “through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology,” a caveat that wasn’t included in the initial draft, per a copy posted last month by Politico.

The administration’s approach to AI has shifted in recent months amid the emergence of Anthropic’s Mythos, a powerful cybersecurity-focused AI model that has driven government discussions about how advanced AI systems can rapidly uncover vulnerabilities across computer networks. 

OpenAI’s recent release of GPT-5.5-Cyber, which has also demonstrated sophisticated cyber capabilities, has further heightened concerns in Washington over how quickly these systems are advancing and how they could reshape cyber defensive and offensive operations.

The choice is unusual for the nation’s top spy official, who would oversee 18 intelligence agencies like the NSA and CIA. Trump defended his selection in a Truth Social post, saying that Pulte, who led many of the administration’s mortgage fraud efforts last year, “has deep experience managing the most sensitive matters in America.” 

Pulte would still hold his leadership positions in FHFA, as well as his chairmanship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while serving as acting director, Trump said.

While heading the housing finance body, Pulte launched investigations into the president’s political foes, including Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook and New York Attorney General Letitia James. He has no experience working in the intelligence community.

The announcement sparked swift condemnation from former national security leads, who expressed disbelief over the pick for a paramount U.S. intelligence post that has seen major restructuring and downsizing over the past year.

“I would think at a time when we are facing exceptional conflict in the Middle East and tensions around the world, we would want someone with deep experience in intelligence matters to serve as the acting director of the agency responsible for coordinating all of America’s spy agencies,” said a former senior national security official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid.

“Moreover, it’s a full-time job, so I can’t see how someone could also serve in an important financial regulatory position at the same time. It makes you think this administration either doesn’t know or care — or both — about this office,” the former senior official added.

Nextgov/FCW has asked the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, FHFA and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for comment. 

Citing her husband's recent cancer diagnosis, Gabbard announced last week that she intends to step down from her position effective at the end of June.

This story is breaking and may be updated.