On 2025-11-12 Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller announced that “streamlined payment accounts” will be operational by Q4 2026, giving non-bank fintechs and digital-asset firms risk‐tailored direct access to Fed payment infrastructure without full master-account privileges; an RFI will precede rulemaking. This matters because it reduces reliance on bank intermediaries, accelerates payment innovation and product roadmaps, and changes competitive dynamics. Key benchmarks: ACH processed 8.8 billion payments worth $23.2 trillion in Q3 2025 (vol +5.2%, value +8.2% YoY); The Clearing House RTP handled 115 million transactions worth $405 billion in Q3 2025 (vol +7%), with a single‐day record of 1.8 million on 2025-10-03; FedNow did 2.51 million payments ($307.3 billion) in Q3 2025 and is raising its cap from $1M to $10M this month. Immediate next steps: respond to the RFI, prepare compliance/tech readiness, and watch RFI publication expected late 2025–early 2026.

On 2025-11-05 Reuters reported that China issued guidance requiring state‐funded data centres under construction to use only domestically produced AI chips, forcing projects under 30% completion to remove foreign chips and subjecting more mature builds to case‐by‐case review; foreign suppliers named include Nvidia, AMD and Intel and even advanced Nvidia parts (H20, B200, H200) are barred. The directive aims to cut reliance on foreign hardware amid U.S. export controls and fast‐tracks market share to domestic vendors such as Huawei, Cambricon, MetaX and Moore Threads; Reuters cites Nvidia’s share in China falling from ~95% in 2022 to zero under the move and reports suspended projects. Expect technical risks (immature software stacks, supply disruptions), geopolitical tension and supply‐chain realignment; monitor formal rules late 2025–early 2026, capacity ramps 2025–2027, project delays in the next six months and foreign or allied responses through 2026.

As of 2 August 2025 the EU AI Act’s obligations for providers of general-purpose AI (GPAI) models entered into application across the EU, imposing rules on transparency, copyright and safety/security for models placed on the market, with models already on market required to comply by 2 August 2027; systemic‐risk models—e.g., those above compute thresholds such as >10^23 FLOPs—face additional notification and elevated safety/security measures. A July 2025 template now mandates public training‐data summaries, a voluntary Code of Practice was finalized on 10 July 2025 to help demonstrate compliance, and enforcement including fines up to 7% of global turnover will start 2 August 2026. Impact: product release strategies, contracts and deployments must align to avoid delisting or penalties. Immediate actions: classify models under GPAI criteria, run documentation and safety gap analyses, and decide on CoP signatory status.

On October 13, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 243, the first U.S. state law setting comprehensive rules for “companion chatbots” in California: operators must disclose chatbot identity (with reminders to minors every three hours), may not imply licensed medical/professional status, must prevent sexual content with minors, detect self‐harm and provide crisis referrals, and begin annual reporting to the California Office of Suicide Prevention on July 1, 2027; many provisions take effect January 1, 2026. The law creates a private right of action (damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees), raising litigation, compliance and operational costs—prompting firms to revise product definitions, age‐verification, safety engineering, transparency and reporting processes and set aside budgets for liability. Key uncertainties include the “reasonable person” standard, scope of “companion” exclusions, and potential interaction with pending federal proposals.

On 2025-07-01 the U.S. Senate voted 99–1 to remove a proposed 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation from a major tax and spending bill, preserving states’ ability to pass and enforce AI-specific laws after a revised funding-limitation version also failed; that decision sustains regulatory uncertainty and keeps states functioning as policy “laboratories” (e.g., California’s SB-243 and state deepfake/impersonation laws). The outcome matters for customers, revenue and operations because fragmented state rules will shape product requirements, compliance costs, liability and market access across AI, software engineering, fintech, biotech and quantum applications. Immediate priorities: monitor federal bills and state law developments, track standards and agency rulemaking (FTC, FCC, ISO/NIST/IEEE), build compliance and auditability capabilities, design flexible architectures, and engage regulators and public comment processes.

In the past two weeks the field of agentic-AI governance crystallized around new technical and policy levers: two research frameworks—AAGATE (NIST AI RMF‐aligned, released late Oct 2025) and AURA (mid‐Oct 2025)—aim to embed threat modeling, measurement, continuous assurance and risk scoring into agentic systems, while regulators have accelerated action: the U.S. FDA convened on therapy chatbots on Nov 5, 2025; Texas passed TRAIGA (HB 149), effective 2026‐01‐01, limiting discrimination claims to intent and creating a test sandbox; and the EU AI Act phases begin Aug 2, 2025 (GPAI), Aug 2, 2026 (high‐risk) and Aug 2, 2027 (products), even as codes and harmonized standards are delayed into late 2025. This matters because firms face compliance uncertainty, shifting liability and operational monitoring demands; near‐term priorities are finalizing EU standards and codes, FDA rulemaking, and operationalizing state sandboxes.

On July 1, 2025 the U.S. Senate voted 99–1 to remove a provision that would have imposed a 10‐year moratorium on state AI rules and blocked states from a $500 million AI infrastructure fund, signaling a retreat from federal centralization and preserving state authority; California then enacted SB 53 on Sept. 29, 2025, requiring AI developers with model training costs over $100 million to disclose safety protocols and report critical safety incidents within 30 days, defining “catastrophic” as >$1 billion in damage or >50 injuries/deaths and allowing fines up to $1 million. Meanwhile the EU AI Act, in force since August 2024, imposes obligations on general‐purpose and foundation models starting Aug. 2, 2025 (risk assessments, adversarial testing, incident reporting, transparency). Impact: states are filling federal gaps, creating overlapping compliance, operational and market risks for firms; watch other states’ actions, federal legislation, and corporate adjustments.

Between July and September 2025 the US reshaped its AI policy: on July 1 the Senate voted 99–1 to remove a provision that would have imposed a 10‐year ban on state AI regulation, preserving state authority; on July 23 the White House unveiled “Winning the AI Race: America’s AI Action Plan” (Executive Order 14179) with more than 90 federal actions across three pillars—accelerating innovation, building AI infrastructure, and international/security priorities—including an export strategy, streamlined data‐center permitting, deregulatory reviews, and procurement standards requiring models “free from ideological bias”; and on Sept. 29 California enacted SB 53, mandating public disclosure of safety protocols, whistleblower protections, and 15‐day reporting of “critical safety incidents.” These moves shift influence from federal bans to federal incentives and procurement, create new compliance and contracting risks for companies, and warrant immediate monitoring of Action Plan implementation, permitting reforms, procurement rules, state responses, and definitions of “ideological bias.”

On 2025-11-07 Reuters reported the European Commission is reconsidering delaying parts of the EU AI Act—implemented in August 2024—after lobbying from U.S. trade officials and major tech firms including Meta and Alphabet, with talks expected to culminate around 2025-11-19 and a final decision not before that date. The reconsideration centers on compliance burdens, trade friction with the U.S., and competitiveness. This matters because the AI Act is the world’s most comprehensive AI framework; delays could reshape global regulatory standards, affect market access and revenue for multinational tech companies, and complicate operational compliance and engineering roadmaps for firms building “high-risk” models. The Commission has not named which provisions may be paused; proposed delays may provoke civil society backlash and increased regulatory divergence between jurisdictions such as the U.S. and California (SB 53, signed 2025-09-29).

The Supreme Court’s West Virginia v. EPA (2022) ruling, highlighted in the past two weeks, drastically limits the EPA’s ability under Section 111(d) to force “generation‐shifting” from fossil fuels to renewables, holding such sweeping systemic changes require clear congressional authorization and reinforcing the major‐questions doctrine. The decision preserves EPA authority for plant‐level “fenceline” measures and leaves intact other tools—vehicle greenhouse gas rules, methane limits, air toxics, and broader air and water quality provisions—so agencies retain targeted regulatory options. Impact: major climate policy requiring economy‐wide generation shifts now needs legislation; courts will apply stricter review to agency actions; and the EPA is expected to pursue narrower, technology‐ or equipment‐based standards at individual facilities rather than systemwide mandates.