The UK Parliament has passed emergency legislation to enable the government to direct the use of assets of British Steel, and to take control of assets if directions are not followed.

The government’s stated intention is “continuing the support of steel production in the UK [which] involves preserving current production capacity to ensure resilience in the production of steel”. The new law creates new powers for the government to intervene in relation to steelmaking businesses whose assets are at risk of ceasing to be used. If the operation of a steelmaking blast furnace, such as those operated by British Steel, is stopped, restarting its operation can be prohibitively expensive and it may be permanently unusable.

Following negotiations with its current owners (the Chinese steelmaker Jingye Group) on the future of British Steel, the government announced on Friday its intention to recall Parliament the following day to introduce a draft bill and complete the full legislative process within a single day. The bill was passed by both Houses of Parliament and received royal asset on Saturday 12 April, coming into force on the same day, as the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 (the “Act”).

This is the first time that Parliament has responded to a perceived crisis in a UK industry by extending the government’s powers to intervene in specific industries for “public interest” reasons since 2008, in the context of the Global Financial Crisis. In that case, Parliament passed legislation to enable the government to nationalise the Northern Rock bank (and subsequently other banks), and later that year the government’s public interest intervention powers under the Enterprise Act 2002 were expanded in order to allow the government to override competition concerns in the Lloyds/HBOS merger. In contrast to previous measures that provide the government with powers to acquire businesses and to intervene in potential mergers and acquisitions between businesses, the new Act applies outside of the context of a transaction or takeover. Specifically, the new Act applies where specific assets may cease (or have ceased) to be used in a steel manufacturing business but the government considers that it is in the public interest that the use of the assets should continue.

New powers to give directions on use of assets and take control of assets

The Act gives the government the power to issue a notice to a steel manufacturing business to direct how assets (in England and Wales) used by this business are to be used. This power is available when (a) it appears to the government that the assets concerned have ceased to be used or are at risk of ceasing to be used by the business, and (b) where the government considers that it is in the public interest that the use of specified assets should resume or continue. Directions can include requirements to use (or not to use) the assets in a specified way, or requirements for the undertaking to take (or not to take) steps to secure the continued and safe use of the assets. Notably this can include requirements to enter into agreements and contracts of employment, the appointment of officers, management decisions, making payments, and preventing insolvency proceedings.Continue Reading UK passes emergency legislation to authorize “public interest” directions on use of British Steel assets

This is part of an ongoing series of Covington blogs on the AI policies, executive orders, and other actions of the Trump Administration.  This blog describes AI actions taken by the Trump Administration in March 2025, and prior articles in this series are available here.

White House Receives Public Comments on AI Action Plan

On March 15, the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy and the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development National Coordination Office within the National Science Foundation closed the comment period for public input on the White House’s AI Action Plan, following their issuance of a Request for Information (“RFI”) on the AI Action Plan on February 6.  As required by President Trump’s AI EO, the RFI called on stakeholders to submit comments on the highest priority policy actions that should be in the new AI Action Plan, centered around 20 broad and non-exclusive topics for potential input, including data centers, data privacy and security, technical and safety standards, intellectual property, and procurement, to inform an AI Action Plan to achieve the AI EO’s policy of “sustain[ing] and enhance[ing] America’s global AI dominance.”

The RFI resulted in 8,755 submitted comments, including submissions from nonprofit organizations, think tanks, trade associations, industry groups, academia, and AI companies.  The final AI Action Plan is expected by July of 2025.

NIST Launches New AI Standards Initiatives

The National Institute of Standards & Technology (“NIST”) announced several AI initiatives in March to advance AI research and the development of AI standards.  On March 19, NIST launched its GenAI Image Challenge, an initiative to evaluate generative AI “image generators” and “image discriminators,” i.e., AI models designed to detect if images are AI-generated.  NIST called on academia and industry research labs to participate in the challenge by submitting generators and discriminators to NIST’s GenAI platform.

On March 24, NIST released its final report on Adversarial Machine Learning: A Taxonomy and Terminology of Attacks and Mitigations, NIST AI 100-2e2025, with voluntary guidance for securing AI systems against adversarial manipulations and attacks.  Noting that adversarial attacks on AI systems “have been demonstrated under real-world conditions, and their sophistication and impacts have been increasing steadily,” the report provides a taxonomy of AI system attacks on predictive and generative AI systems at various stages of the “machine learning lifecycle.” 

On March 25, NIST announced the launch of an “AI Standards Zero Drafts project” that will pilot a new process for creating AI standards.  The new standards process will involve the creation of preliminary “zero drafts” of AI standards drafted by NIST and informed by rounds of stakeholder input, which will be submitted to standards developing organizations (“SDOs”) for formal standardization.  NIST outlined four AI topics for the pilot of the Zero Drafts project: (1) AI transparency and documentation about AI systems and data; (2) methods and metrics for AI testing, evaluation, verification, and validation (“TEVV”); (3) concepts and terminology for AI system designs, architectures, processes, and actors; and (4) technical measures for reducing synthetic content risks.  NIST called for stakeholder input on the topics, scope, and priorities of the Zero Drafts process, with no set deadline for submitting responses.Continue Reading March 2025 AI Developments Under the Trump Administration

On April 9, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order (“EO”), “Modernizing Defense Acquisitions and Spurring Innovation In the Defense Industrial Base,” that may have significant implications for federal government contractors doing business with the Department of Defense (“DoD”), and particularly those with touchpoints to Major Defense Acquisition Programs (“MDAPs”).

The EO requires DoD to take a number of actions, including:

  • Within 60 days (i.e., June 8th), the Secretary of Defense must submit to the President a plan to reform the DoD acquisition process to eliminate inefficiencies.  The plan must prioritize commercial solutions and the use of Other Transactions Authority (“OTA”) agreements and Rapid Capabilities Office mechanisms.  The plan must also eliminate redundant tasks and approvals, centralize decision-making, and incorporate effective risk management for all acquisition programs through a governance structure referred to as a Configuration Steering Board. 
  • Under no specified timeline, DoD is generally directed to revise internal regulations and implementation guidance — including the DoD Financial Management Regulation and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement — utilizing the principle from the “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” EO (Jan. 31, 2025) that for every new regulation proposed, ten existing regulations should be repealed.
  • Within 90 days (i.e., July 8th), the Secretary of Defense must review all MDAPs and consider for “potential cancellation” programs that are: (1) more than 15% behind schedule; (2) more than 15% above cost; (3) “unable to meet key performance parameters”; or (4) otherwise not aligned with DoD mission priorities.  Following this review of MDAPs, the Secretary of Defense will conduct a similar review for all remaining major systems.
  • Within 120 days (i.e. August 7th), the Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Military Departments, must propose a plan to overhaul the defense acquisition workforce by restructuring performance metrics, assessing workforce sizing requirements, and deploying expert-led field training teams to enhance familiarity with innovative acquisition authorities.  These reforms are intended to incentivize prudent risk-taking and expand the workforce’s fluency in commercial solutions and adaptive acquisition strategies.  
  • Within 180 days (i.e., October 6th), the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the Military Departments and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, must complete a comprehensive review of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (“JCIDS”), with the aim of streamlining and accelerating acquisition.[1] 

We address the EO’s directives for acquisition process reform and MDAP review in greater detail below. Continue Reading Trump Administration Issues Executive Order Aimed At Modernizing Defense Acquisitions And Spurring Innovation

Important changes to California’s pay-to-play law took effect January 1, 2025, and now the state’s regulations have caught up to the law.

The state’s Fair Political Practices Commission adopted the new regulations late last month, following statutory revisions to California’s complex pay-to-play law found at California Government Code § 84308…

Continue Reading California Updates Pay-to-Play Law Regulations to Reflect Recent Law Changes

Many businesses use customer support software that may include call recording features to help ensure a better customer service experience.  A California federal court dismissed a wiretapping lawsuit filed against a software company offering this software tool (TalkDesk), holding that TalkDesk’s alleged recording of customers’ conversations with clothing retailers “is…

Continue Reading Recording of Customer Service Call “Not Private or Personal Enough” to Confer Article III Standing

On April 3, the White House Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) released two memoranda with AI guidance and requirements for federal agencies, Memorandum M-25-21 on Accelerating Federal Use of AI through Innovation, Governance, and Public Trust (“OMB AI Use Memo“) and Memorandum M-25-22 on Driving Efficient Acquisition of Artificial Intelligence in Government (“OMB AI Procurement Memo”).  According to the White House’s fact sheet, the OMB AI Use and AI Procurement Memos (collectively, the “new OMB AI Memos”), which rescind and replace OMB memos on AI use and procurement issued under President Biden’s Executive Order 14110 (“Biden OMB AI Memos”), shift U.S. AI policy to a “forward-leaning, pro-innovation, and pro-competition mindset” that will make agencies “more agile, cost-effective, and efficient.”  The new OMB AI Memos implement President Trump’s January 23 Executive Order 14179 on “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence” (the “AI EO”), which directs the OMB to revise the Biden OMB AI Memos to make them consistent with the AI EO’s policy of “sustain[ing] and enhance[ing] America’s global AI dominance.” 

Overall, the new OMB AI Memos build on the frameworks established under President Trump’s 2020 Executive Order 13960 on “Promoting the Use of Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence in the Federal Government” and the Biden OMB AI Memos.  This is consistent with the AI EO, which noted that the Administration would “revise” the Biden AI Memos “as necessary.”  At the same time, the new OMB AI Memos include some significant differences from the Biden OMB’s approach in the areas discussed below (as well as other areas).

  • Scope & Definitions.  The OMB AI Use Memo applies to “new and existing AI that is developed, used, or acquired by or on behalf of covered agencies,” with certain exclusions for the Intelligence Community and the Department of Defense.  The memo defines “AI” by reference to Section 238(g) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019.  Like the Biden OMB AI Memos, the OMB AI Use Memo states that “no system should be considered too simple to qualify as covered AI due to a lack of technical complexity.”

    The OMB AI Procurement Memo applies to “AI systems or services that are acquired by or on behalf of covered agencies,” excluding the Intelligence Community, and includes “data systems, software, applications, tools, or utilities” that are “established primarily” for researching, developing, or implementing AI or where an “AI capability” is integrated into another process, operational activity, or technology system.  The memo excludes AI that is “embedded” in “common commercial products” that are widely available for commercial use and have “substantial non-AI purposes or functionalities,” along with AI “used incidentally by a contractor” during contract performance.  In other words, the policies are targeted at software that is primarily used for its AI capabilities, rather than on software that happens to incorporate AI.

Continue Reading OMB Issues First Trump 2.0-Era Requirements for AI Use and Procurement by Federal Agencies

Friday the White House released an executive summary of the policy reviews President Trump ordered in his America First Trade Policy (AFTP) memorandum, issued on January 20.  Although the full report to the President is nonpublic, according to the executive summary it contains twenty-four chapters, organized into three main…

Continue Reading Agencies Deliver America First Trade Policy Recommendations to White House

President Trump recently issued two separate Executive Orders (EOs) that will have implications for how federal agencies seek to promote the administration’s goal of attracting domestic and foreign investment to industrial projects in the United States, with particular implications for the semiconductor and critical minerals industries. 

  1. An EO on March 31st establishes an “Investment Accelerator” office within the Department of Commerce that will be responsible for overseeing the implementation of the CHIPS Program—including the negotiation of agreements under the CHIPS Act.  This office will also provide technical and regulatory support for investors, and seek to facilitate research collaborations between private industry and national labs. 
  2. An earlier EO issued on March 20th seeks to mobilize federal lending and leasing authorities at the Department of Defense (DoD), the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), and other federal agencies to support the development of domestic critical mineral projects.  Per an accompanying fact sheet, the White House is taking a broad interpretation of covered minerals under this March 20th Order and will seek to include materials such as coal. 

Both EOs are notable efforts by the White House to align federal spending and financial assistance programs with the Trump Administration’s priorities, which have variously included calls to promote self-sufficiency in critical materials and promoting “energy independence” and “energy dominance.”  These efforts come against a backdrop under which the Administration is also pursuing the use of tariffs to promote U.S. manufacturing, and taking steps to review and in some cases modify or terminate infrastructure or energy-related grants from the Biden-era.  More details are provided below.  Continue Reading Trump Administration Issues Executive Orders that Seek to Shape CHIPS Program and Promote Domestic Mineral Production

Last week, the Georgia state Senate authorized a sweeping investigation of former gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, continuing a national trend of increased state legislative investigations.  Although state-level investigations continue to lag far behind congressional investigations, state legislatures appear to be replicating what we see on the federal level with increasing…

Continue Reading Georgia Senate Launches Abrams-Focused Inquiry, Signaling Growing Risk of State Legislative Investigations

Kenya has released its first National Artificial Intelligence Strategy (2025–2030), a landmark document on the continent that sets out a government-led vision for ethical, inclusive, and innovation-driven AI adoption. Framed as a foundational step in the country’s digital transformation agenda, the strategy articulates policy ambitions that will be of interest to global companies developing, deploying, or investing in AI technologies across Africa.

While the strategy is explicitly domestic in focus, its framing—and the architecture of its governance, infrastructure, and data pillars—reflects a broader trend, i.e., the localization of global AI governance norms in high-growth, emerging markets.

What the Strategy Means for Global Technology Governance

The strategy touches on several themes that intersect with enterprise risk, product development, and regulatory foresight for multinationals:

  • Data governance and sovereignty: Kenya signals a strong intent to develop AI within national parameters, grounded in local data ecosystems. The strategy explicitly references data privacy, cybersecurity, and ethics as core enablers of the AI ecosystem. For global companies with cloud-based models or cross-border data transfer frameworks, these developments may signal localization pressures or evolving consent standards.
  • Sector-specific use cases: Healthcare, agriculture, financial services, and public administration are named as strategic AI priorities. Companies operating in the life sciences, health tech, or diagnostics space should watch closely for how regulatory authorities may interpret and apply ethical or risk-based AI guidelines—especially where AI is used in clinical decision-making, diagnostics, or personalized medicine.
  • Public-private AI infrastructure development: The strategy envisages expanded digital infrastructure, data centers, and cloud resources, as well as national research hubs. This may create commercial opportunities—but could also trigger localization requirements or procurement-related restrictions, particularly for telecommunications and hyperscale cloud providers.
  • Future legal frameworks: The current strategy is not itself a binding legal instrument, but it points to future policy development—especially around governance, regulatory oversight, and risk classification of AI systems. Teams advising on AI risk, litigation exposure, and AI-assisted products (including generative tools) will want to track the next wave of draft legislation and implementation guidance.

Continue Reading Kenya’s AI Strategy 2025–2030: Signals for Global Companies Operating in Africa