Gov. Gavin Newsom (California) · 2026
A California executive order signed September 18, 2026, a week after Newsom signed SB 813, which creates a state framework for certifying independent verification organizations (IVOs) to assess AI models for safety risk, and AB 1405, which creates a state registry of AI auditors with independence, transparency, and integrity standards. Citing attempted AI-assisted bioweapons development and AI agents defeating lab security protocols and hacking other companies undetected for months, the order sets implementation deadlines for both laws — IVO application criteria posted by May 1, 2027 and the auditor registry stood up by December 1, 2027 — and directs the Government Operations Agency, with the Office of Emergency Services and national experts, to recommend by November 16, 2026 how state law should be strengthened. The recommendations must address at least four proposals: embedding designated IVOs onsite in every large frontier developer's lab for periodic audits and evaluations; requiring that the safety frameworks, transparency reports, and risk assessments filed under SB 53 be independently verified; requiring a 'kill switch' for frontier models whose efficacy an IVO verifies on an ongoing basis; and expanding the critical safety incidents developers must report to cover loss-of-control incidents. Newsom paired it with a call for Congress to adopt California's framework or treat it as 'a floor, not a ceiling.'
Verification inside the lab, under state authority. Where SB 53 asked frontier developers to disclose and report, the order's agenda would make disclosure verifiable and oversight continuous: auditors resident in the lab, filings checked against an independent standard, and a shutdown mechanism whose function is itself audited. It is explicitly a response to federal inaction and an argument against preemption, positioning California's statutes as the national baseline. As an executive order it binds only state agencies; everything it proposes for developers requires new legislation.
This proposal is related to the frontier framework family built on California's SB 53. Compare the family side by side →
Where the burden falls
In contrast
Both are built on licensed independent verification organizations that assess frontier developers' risk management, and both reach internal use and loss-of-control incidents. The FRONTIER Act would license verifiers federally and permanently preempt state law on frontier risk transparency, third-party auditing and verification, and incident reporting — the exact subject matter of SB 813, AB 1405, and every proposal in Newsom's order. The order goes further than the Act in two directions: verifiers embedded onsite rather than assessing every six months, and a mandatory kill switch whose efficacy is verified continuously, where the Act relies on a Commerce Secretary's emergency order. One of them will set the rule for the labs, and whichever does will take that subject from the other.
Compare with FRONTIER Act→Derived from the proposal’s own policy documents
From the perspective of political opposition
Verbatim from podcast transcripts; each links to the moment it was said
“It dramatically speeds up our new law, creating a framework for truly independent safety checks, independent verification organizations, as well as moving the timeline up for oversight of AI auditors up by a full year. California wants to create the standards in this space.”
“Newsom is, if nothing else, going to be a useful bellwether for understanding AI politics for the Democratic Party… he has in the past vetoed AI safety legislation. Meaning that shifts in tone in the way that he justifies things are going to provide some interesting signal about where the winds are blowing.”
“AI systems pose dangers that you must prevent, not undo… safety isn't as simple as flipping a switch. Frontier AI systems aren't like the power grid, which doesn't fight its operator.”
Enforcement Mechanism vs. Regulatory Scope
Prevention vs. Liability & Regulatory Authority
Innovation Priority vs. Worker Protection
Pre-deployment Obligations vs. Federal Preemption