cs.CYSep 14, 2026

Mapping U.S. Federal AI Governance Against Sector Vulnerability

Authors: Ho Ting Hung, Angelica Chowdhury, James Teague, Simon Mylius, Spencer Michaels, Peter Slattery, Alexander Saeri, Neil Thompson

Organizations: MARS · MIT FutureTech · Cambridge Boston Alignment Initiative

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) poses different levels of risk across sectors, but are these differences reflected in U.S. federal AI governance? To help answer this question, we assess 684 federal AI governance documents for their coverage of 14 sectors and 24 AI risks. We measure coverage as breadth (i.e., how frequently the risk or sector is addressed across documents) and depth (i.e., how substantively the risk or sector is discussed). We then compare sector coverage patterns for each of the 24 risks with vulnerability assessments from a Delphi study of 272 experts. Our analysis finds substantial variation in coverage: AI risks related to robustness, system security, and governance receive more attention than socioeconomic, environmental, and emerging risks, including multi-agent risks. Public administration, national security, information, and scientific services receive comparatively high levels of coverage relative to other sectors, such as finance and healthcare, which experts rate as highly vulnerable to AI risks. By mapping current coverage and identifying where it differs from expert assessments of vulnerability, we surface potential AI governance gaps which may help inform AI risk-related decisions across government and industry.

Figures & tables

ScoreRisk Subdomain CoverageSector Coverage
1 (None)No Coverage: Risk subdomain is not mentioned at all.No Mention: The sector is not mentioned or referenced in any way.
2 (Minimal)Minimal Coverage: Brief mention (no more than a few sentences). No specific mitigations or governance measures are described.Minimal Coverage: The sector is mentioned, but with little elaboration on specific AI governance (no more than a few sentences).
3 (Good)Good Coverage: Comprehensive governance measures or mitigations with clear procedures explicitly described (typically ≥\geq 1 paragraph).Good Coverage: Explicit, clear description of governance measures, controls, or obligations (typically several dedicated sentences).
Table 1: Coverage Score Rubric for Risk Subdomains and Sectors
Figure 1: Methodological Framework
Figure 2: Percentage of Documents Mentioning a Sector Among Those Mentioning a Domain
Figure 3: Sector Vulnerability Against Sector Share
CategoryDepthDocuments (Good coverage/mentions)
Risk subdomains
1.2 Exposure to toxic content44.7%17/38
7.4 Lack of transparency or interpretability44.2%72/163
4.3 Cyberattacks, weapon development or use, and mass harm42.9%48/112
1.1 Unfair discrimination and misrepresentation42.5%37/87
6.5 Governance failure40.1%107/267
Table 2: Depth of Coverage of U.S. Federal AI Governance Documents
Figure 4: Sector Vulnerability Against Coverage
More in this topic

AI Governance

Artificial intelligence governance studies how laws, institutions, and technical controls shape AI development, deployment, accountability, and social effects.

See all 384 papers

Explore similar work

CardsList

  1. AI Deployment and Cyber Governance Failures in Public-Sector Organizations: A Typological Analysis

    Jul 28, 2026Md Salahuddin, James Rooney, Fida HasanAI AccountabilityCybersecurity

    School of Professional Studies, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Canberra, Australia · School of Business, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Australia

  2. Governing frontier general-purpose AI in the public sector: adaptive risk management and policy capacity under uncertainty through 2030

    Mar 16, 2026Fabio Correa XavierAI GovernanceAI Risk Management

  3. Visible to the Court: How AI Is (and Isn't) Litigated in U.S. Federal Court Opinions

    Jul 26, 2026Julie Yu, Rock Yuren Pang, Jevan Hutson +1AI AccountabilityAI Governance

    University of Washington Seattle, WA, USA