AI Governance Framework Comparison

Summary

No existing U.S. or Washington State framework matches the scope or structure of the 13 pillars. Most government efforts focus on narrow areas like technical risk, civil rights, or deepfake regulation. The 13-pillar model is much broader and functions as a complete reference architecture for future AI legislation.

Pillars vs. Existing Efforts

Pillar	Focus	NIST RMF	WA Task Force	Federal EOs	Draft Bills
P1	National objectives	values only	principles	high-level goals	no national charter
P2	Model safety	core	standards	safety	risk bills
P3	Transparency	core	reviews	reporting	accountability bills
P4	Security & misuse	some	included	national security	cyber laws
P5	Energy & compute	none	none	minimal	few
P6	Labor & automation	none	studies	mentions	light coverage
P7	Education	none	in scope	broad	scattered
P8	Public-sector AI	if adopted	explicit	agency rules	procurement bills
P9	Deepfakes & elections	none	weak	some	deepfake bills
P10	Consumer protection	individual harm	consumer	civil rights	privacy & TAKE IT DOWN
P11	Competition & power	none	none	rarely	antitrust only
P12	Liability & oversight	supports	enforcement	agency powers	liability proposals
P13	International standards	none	state-level	mentions allies	trade/standards

Diagram

The 13-pillar diagram anchors the comparison:

Conclusion

Current government efforts cover parts of pillars 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, and 12. The biggest gaps are pillars 1, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 13. Your 13-pillar framework provides the missing structure — a legislative roadmap for future AI governance.