California has taken further steps to strengthen oversight of artificial intelligence (AI) through Executive Order N-9-26, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on 18 September 2026. The initiative reflects California’s intention to establish additional safeguards for the development and deployment of AI, amid continuing disagreements over the appropriate division of regulatory responsibilities between federal and state authorities.

According to an article recently published analysing the Executive Order, the Executive Order places particular emphasis on responsible AI procurement, transparency and accountability, seeking to ensure that AI systems used by state authorities are subject to appropriate safeguards.

More specifically, the Executive Order accelerates the implementation of two recently enacted laws, Senate Bill 813 and Assembly Bill 1405, concerning independent verification organisations and AI auditors. The California Government Operations Agency must establish and publish the application requirements, procedures and criteria for independent verification organisations by 1 May 2027. Further implementation measures concerning the registration and oversight of AI auditors are to be advanced by 1 December 2027.

In addition, the Executive Order requires the Government Operations Agency, in consultation with the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and national experts, to submit recommendations by 16 November 2026 on possible amendments to California’s existing AI safety legislation.

The initiative also reflects a broader disagreement between California and the federal government concerning AI regulation. Governor Newsom has criticised what he considers insufficient federal oversight and has advocated using California’s regulatory framework as a potential model for nationwide AI safeguards. These statements reflect the Governor’s policy position rather than a legal determination regarding the adequacy of federal regulation.

For companies developing or deploying advanced AI systems, the Executive Order is relevant primarily as an indication of California’s prospective regulatory direction, particularly regarding independent audits, risk assessments, incident reporting and technical safety mechanisms. Its eventual implications for private-sector compliance obligations will depend on the adoption and content of any subsequent legislative amendments as the mentioned article concludes.