The No Adversarial AI Act would direct the Federal Acquisition Security Council to create and maintain a public list of artificial intelligence products and services produced or developed by a “foreign adversary,” and would require the Office of Management and Budget to publish that list online. The list would be updated at least every 180 days, and a vendor could seek removal by certifying that its AI is not produced or developed by a foreign adversary and providing supporting information for review and certification by the Council.
The bill would also require executive agencies to review and consider excluding or removing listed foreign-adversary AI from federal acquisition and use, using existing procurement-risk authorities. Agencies could approve exceptions with notice to OMB and the relevant congressional committees if the AI is needed for scientifically valid research, evaluation/training/testing/analysis, counterterrorism or counterintelligence, or to avoid jeopardizing mission-critical functions. The bill defines “artificial intelligence,” “foreign adversary,” and “foreign adversary entity” by reference to existing federal law and ownership/control thresholds.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would add a new federal procurement and cybersecurity screening process for AI products and services tied to foreign adversaries. It would affect executive agencies, the Federal Acquisition Security Council, OMB, and federal contractors or vendors whose AI offerings are identified on the list. The measure would not ban all foreign-made AI, but it would create a presumption against acquisition and use in federal agencies, with limited exceptions and a formal removal process.
Sentiment
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided material, so public sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll call. The bill’s bipartisan sponsorship suggests at least some cross-party support for restricting foreign-adversary technology in federal systems, and the text frames the measure as a national security and supply-chain risk reduction effort. Overall, the available context indicates a security-focused, precautionary posture rather than a contested partisan debate.
Contention
The main policy tension is between national security concerns and operational flexibility for federal agencies. Supporters are likely to favor stronger restrictions on AI linked to foreign adversaries, while potential concerns could center on the breadth of the definitions, the administrative burden of maintaining and reviewing the list, and the risk of disrupting agency missions or research. The bill addresses some of those concerns by allowing exceptions for research, testing, counterintelligence, and mission-critical functions, but those exceptions may still be a point of scrutiny if agencies or vendors view them as too narrow or too discretionary.