August 21, 2024
Regulating Artificial Intelligence Must Not Undermine NIST’s Integrity
The United States is the global leader in the development of AI and is well-positioned to influence AI’s future trajectories. Decisions made today in the US will have a long-lasting impact, both domestically and globally, on how we build, use, and experience AI. However, recent legislative proposals and executive actions on AI risk entangling the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in politically charged decisions, potentially calling the organization’s neutrality into question.
This is an outcome that must be prevented. NIST plays a key role in supporting American scientific and economic leadership in AI, and a strong, respected, and politically neutral NIST is a critical component for supporting America’s leadership in technological development and innovation.
A strong NIST will continue to help build standards that are adopted globally and lay the foundation for further American AI innovation and dissemination.
For over a century, NIST has helped advance American commerce, innovation, and global technological leadership. NIST’s experts have developed groundbreaking standards, techniques, tools, and evaluations that have pushed the frontier of measurement science. Today, almost every product or service we interact with has been impacted by the “technology, measurement, and standards provided by the NIST.” More recently, in the context of ongoing global AI competition, NIST has also been active in developing important standards for AI-based systems.
Key to this success has always been NIST’s ability to keep politics away from science, remaining neutral, and focusing on what it does best: measurement science. Now, in the name of AI Safety, many emerging proposals would task NIST with conducting and evaluating AI-based systems themselves. These risks are further compounded by the introduction of an increasingly politicized AI Safety Institute (AISI). Though these points might seem trivial, the long-term implications are significant.
Read the full article from the Tech Policy Press.
More from CNAS
-
CNAS Insights
Technology & National Security
CNAS Insights | Governing Jailbreak IncidentsIn June 2026, Anthropic publicly released Claude Fable 5, a restricted version of its highly cyber-capable Mythos model. Within days, reports reached U.S. officials that resea...
By Ben Hayum
-
Commentary
Technology & National Security
Closing the Remote Access LoopThis article was originally published in Issues in Science and Technology. As Asad Ramzanali argues in “Why the Cloud Needs Competition” (Issues, Winter 2026), cloud computing...
By Michelle Nie
-
Commentary
Technology & National Security
Losing the War of the FutureThis article was originally published in Foreign Affairs. In its recent campaign against Iran, the United States dominated the skies using its traditional airpower. The U.S. m...
By Paul Scharre
-
Podcast
Technology & National Security
We Need AI Treaties. This Is How We Get ThemIn this episode, Tristan sits down with two experts in this field to discuss the kinds of verification technology we need for AI, the challenges of building it, and the world ...
By Janet Egan & Tim Fist
