Trump administration asks OpenAI to limit GPT-5.6 rollout: reports

The administration of President Donald Trump has asked OpenAI to limit the initial release of GPT-5.6 to a small group of government-approved partners while federal officials evaluate the model, according to reports Information and Axios.

The order marks the second time this month that the US government has intervened to limit the launch of a frontier AI model, following its order that humanity… comment Public access to CloudFable 5 and Myths 5 regarding national security concerns.

According to reports, the White House Office of the National Cyber ​​Director and Office of Science and Technology Policy have asked OpenAI to limit the rollout of GPT-5.6 while the administration develops a framework to evaluate advanced AI models before wider deployment. Sources familiar with the discussions reportedly said the request was driven by GPT-5.6’s “myth-like” capabilities rather than a broader shift in AI policy.

The order follows President Trump Executive order Earlier this month, federal agencies were directed to create a voluntary testing framework for advanced AI systems before release, after weeks of internal debate over how to structure the program.

The move also reflects a shift in the relationship between major AI developers and Washington after years of developers asking the government to set regulations for the industry.

During his testimony before the Senate in 2023, Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, urged lawmakers to create a system Regulatory agency for advanced AI systems, arguing that independent oversight will eventually be necessary. And most recently, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei Argue The most capable AI models must undergo rigorous government-supported evaluations before deployment because of their potential to enable sophisticated cyberattacks, bioweapons research, and other national security threats.

These arguments became increasingly formal in nature Anthropic, OpenAIand Google Each has published proposals outlining how to manage frontier AI. Although different in their approaches, all three call for structured evaluations of the most capable models, increased transparency around safety testing, independent review of high-risk systems, and a greater role for government in overseeing AI development.

Management intervention may also test whether the governance frameworks underpinned by leading AI companies can be applied equally across the industry. Critics warning If the largest AI developers help shape rules that are then applied unevenly, border AI regulation could become a form of Regulatory takeover Which favors a select group of companies while making it difficult for competitors to compete.