Photo of Jonathan M. BakerPhoto of Adelicia R. CliffePhoto of Kate M. Growley, CIPP/G, CIPP/USPhoto of Laura J. Mitchell BakerPhoto of Michelle Coleman

On January 1, 2021, the 116th Congress enacted the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which established, among other things, the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020 (Division E, Title LI, §§ 5101-5106) (hereinafter “the Initiative”), a program to award financial assistance to National Artificial Intelligence Research Institutes (Division E, Title LII, § 5201), and provided acquisition authority to the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC). The NDAA’s focus on artificial intelligence (AI) is yet another demonstration of the Federal Government’s priority of and commitment to ensuring American dominance in AI, among other emerging technologies. We have reported on the numerous actions taken by the Federal Government to further that end herehereherehere, and here.

The Initiative endeavors to ensure that, for the next ten years, the Federal Government focuses on using “trustworthy” AI systems; preparing the U.S. workforce for the use of AI systems across all sectors of the economy and society; and coordinating AI research, development, and demonstration activities amongst the civilian, defense, and intelligence agencies and communities. To carry out this purpose, the Initiative highlights the need for grants and cooperative agreements for AI research and development, collaboration with industry and other diverse stakeholders, and leveraging existing federal investments to advance the Initiative’s objectives. In support of these activities, the Initiative creates a National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Office (NAIIO). The NAIIO will serve as the point of contact for federal AI activities and aims to regularly work with industry and the public.

The Initiative also creates an Interagency Committee that will coordinate federal programs and activities and develop a strategic plan with goals, priorities, and metrics to evaluate how federal agencies will carry out the Initiative. The Interagency Committee will expect federal agencies to: (1) prioritize federal leadership and investment in AI research, development, and demonstration; (2) support interdisciplinary AI research, development, demonstration, and education with long-term funding; (3) support research and activities focused on AI ethical, legal, environmental, safety, security, bias, and other societal issues that the use of AI may implicate; (4) ensure the availability of “curated, standardized, secure, representative, aggregate, and privacy-protected data sets for artificial intelligence research and development;” (5) ensure AI research and development has the necessary computing, networking, and data facilities; (6) coordinate and support both federal AI education and work force training activities; and (7) support and coordinate the network of AI research institutes established in Section 5201(b) of the NDAA.

Similarly, the Initiative establishes the National Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee (NAIAC). The NAIAC will consist of individuals from industry, academic institutions, nonprofit and civil societies, and federal laboratories; these individuals will be appointed to the NAIAC by the Secretary of Commerce. The NAIAC will advise the President and the NAIIO on several items, including providing recommendations on the United States’ competitiveness in AI, progress being made through the Initiative, and regulatory or nonregulatory oversight of AI systems.

In addition, the Initiative calls for: (1) the establishment of a Subcommittee on Artificial Intelligence and Law Enforcement; (2) a study on the impact of AI on the workforce, and (3) the establishment of a task force to address the feasibility of establishing and maintaining a National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource. The Subcommittee on Artificial Intelligence and Law Enforcement will provide advice on: (a) bias in the use of AI systems in law enforcement; (b) law enforcement’s access to data and the security parameters for that data; (c) the ability for the Federal Government and industry to take advantage of AI systems for security or law enforcement purposes; and (d) legal standards to ensure that the use of AI systems is consistent with privacy, civil rights and liberties, and disability laws and rights.

The NDAA also established a program that would allow the Secretaries of Energy and Commerce, and the Director of the National Science Foundation, to award financial assistance to the National Artificial Intelligence Research Institutes program. Part of the National Science Foundation, this program enables longer-term research and U.S. leadership in AI through the creation of AI Research Institutes, which are focused on a particular economic or social sector and either address ethical, societal, safety, and security implications for the use of AI in that sector or focus on cross-cutting challenges for AI systems. There are additional requirements for AI Research Institutes, including, for example, that they must have partnerships across public and private organizations and have the ability to create an innovation ecosystem that can translate the Institute’s research into applications and products. Among other things, the AI Research Institutes may use the financial assistance for developing testbeds for AI systems; managing and making curated, standardized, secure, and privacy protected data sets from the public and private sectors available for purposes of testing and training AI systems; and performing research and providing education activities that involve AI systems to solve social, economic, health, scientific, and national security challenges. Financial assistance may be provided for an initial five-year period, with a potential five-year extension based on a merit-review. The NDAA does not provide specific details on how to seek assistance—only that applications should be submitted to an agency head “at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the agency head may require.”

Lastly, the NDAA included acquisition authority for the JAIC. Specifically, the NDAA grants the JAIC Director acquisition authority of up to $75 million for new contracts for each year through FY2025. To support the JAIC Director, the NDAA requires the Department of Defense to provide the JAIC with full-time personnel to execute acquisitions and support program management, cost analysis, and other essential procurement functions.

These are welcomed developments in the world of AI. The NDAA affords industry a number of opportunities to get involved in shaping the Federal Government’s use of AI systems, whether through participating in Committees, influencing the regulatory and/or nonregulatory schemes that may be applied to public and private use of AI systems, or researching and developing AI systems with the support of federal financial assistance.

 

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Jonathan M. Baker Jonathan M. Baker

Jonathan M. Baker is a partner in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office. He practices in the Government Contracts Group.

Jon advises clients on a wide array of government contracts legal issues, including both federal and state bid protests, prime-sub disputes, government contracts…

Jonathan M. Baker is a partner in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office. He practices in the Government Contracts Group.

Jon advises clients on a wide array of government contracts legal issues, including both federal and state bid protests, prime-sub disputes, government contracts due diligence and transactions, regulatory compliance, and contract terminations. Jon’s practice has a notable emphasis on technology-related issues, including counseling clients in the areas of patent and data rights, responding to government challenges to technical data and computer software rights assertions, and litigating cases involving complex and cutting edge technologies. Jon also provides guidance on national security matters, such as National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual compliance and facility and security clearance matters. In addition, Jon has advised clients on local government contract negotiation, internal and government investigations regarding potential False Claims Act issues, and export violations. Jon is also actively involved in the firm’s pro bono program, having litigated prisoner neglect, parental rights termination, and landlord-tenant matters.

Photo of Adelicia R. Cliffe Adelicia R. Cliffe

Adelicia Cliffe is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office, a member of the Steering Committee for the firm’s Government Contracts Group, and a member of the International Trade Group. Addie is also co-chair of the firm’s National Security practice. Addie has been…

Adelicia Cliffe is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office, a member of the Steering Committee for the firm’s Government Contracts Group, and a member of the International Trade Group. Addie is also co-chair of the firm’s National Security practice. Addie has been named as a nationally recognized practitioner in the government contracts field by Chambers USA.

Photo of Kate M. Growley, CIPP/G, CIPP/US Kate M. Growley, CIPP/G, CIPP/US

Kate M. Growley (CIPP/US, CIPP/G) is a director in Crowell & Moring International’s Southeast Asia regional office. Drawing from over a decade of experience as a practicing attorney in the United States, Kate helps her clients navigate and shape the policy and regulatory…

Kate M. Growley (CIPP/US, CIPP/G) is a director in Crowell & Moring International’s Southeast Asia regional office. Drawing from over a decade of experience as a practicing attorney in the United States, Kate helps her clients navigate and shape the policy and regulatory environment for some of the most complex data issues facing multinational companies, including cybersecurity, privacy, and digital transformation. Kate has worked with clients across every major sector, with particular experience in technology, health care, manufacturing, and aerospace and defense. Kate is a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP) in both the U.S. private and government sectors by the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP). She is also a Registered Practitioner with the U.S. Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Cyber Accreditation Body (AB).

Photo of Laura J. Mitchell Baker Laura J. Mitchell Baker

Laura J. Mitchell Baker is a counsel with Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.

Laura represents government contractors in litigation and administrative matters, including contract disputes with state and federal entities, suspension and debarment proceedings, mandatory disclosures…

Laura J. Mitchell Baker is a counsel with Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.

Laura represents government contractors in litigation and administrative matters, including contract disputes with state and federal entities, suspension and debarment proceedings, mandatory disclosures to the government, prime-sub disputes, and False Claims Act investigations. Her practice also includes counseling on federal, state, and local government contracts, government contracts due diligence, and regulatory and compliance matters, as well as conducting internal investigations.

Photo of Michelle Coleman Michelle Coleman

Michelle D. Coleman is a counsel in the Government Contracts Group in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office. Michelle advises clients from diverse industries in connection with contract disputes and other government contract matters, including Contract Disputes Act (CDA) claims and requests for…

Michelle D. Coleman is a counsel in the Government Contracts Group in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office. Michelle advises clients from diverse industries in connection with contract disputes and other government contract matters, including Contract Disputes Act (CDA) claims and requests for equitable adjustments, fiscal law questions, prime-sub disputes, and bid protests.