Jump to content

California Executive Order N-9-26

From AI Law Wiki

AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.

Law & policy information
Name
Executive Order N-9-26[1]
Jurisdiction
California, United States[1]
Instrument type
Executive order[1]
Bill / legal citation
N-9-26; Government Code sections 8898.1 and 11549.82[1]
Legislative or adoption status
Signed September 18, 2026[1]
Effective dates
Effective immediately; recommendations November 16, 2026; agency deadlines May 1 and December 1, 2027[1]
Last source verification
September 18, 2026: signed order reviewed[1]

Overview

Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order N-9-26 on September 18, 2026, effective immediately. It directs faster implementation of California’s independent AI oversight programs and recommendations for possible amendments to state AI-safety laws.[1]

Agency implementation deadlines

The Government Operations Agency must complete the independent-verification requirements of Government Code section 8898.1 by May 1, 2027, including publishing application requirements, procedures and criteria. This accelerates implementation of SB 813.[1]

By December 1, 2027, the agency must complete section 11549.82(a) and begin the actions required under section 11549.82(b), concerning AB 1405’s AI auditor registry. These are agency implementation directions; the order does not amend the statute’s separate January 1, 2029 prohibition on unregistered covered audits.[1][2]

Recommendations on further safeguards

By November 16, 2026, the agency, consulting the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and national experts, must recommend potential changes addressing onsite independent evaluators at large frontier developers, independently verified safety documentation, emergency shutdown mechanisms and broader reporting of loss-of-control incidents. The order requires assessment of technical feasibility and potential efficacy; it does not itself impose these proposed duties on AI companies.[1]

CalMatters places the proposals in the context of measures considered in the earlier vetoed SB 1047 and distinguishes recommendations from adopted requirements.[3]

References