Summary — Senate Substitute for HB 2313 (2025)
Status and timing
- Introduced: January 31, 2025.
- Enacted: Substitute version recommended by Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs and enacted by the Legislature; presented to the Governor in early April 2025 (documents indicate the bill was approved by the Governor in April 2025).
- Key deadline created by the law: medical and research facilities seeking state reimbursement for replacement equipment must submit purchase orders and a reimbursement request prior to October 1, 2025. Reimbursement is subject to legislative appropriations.
Purpose
- To mitigate perceived national‑security and data‑security risks by: (1) prohibiting state use of specified foreign‑controlled artificial intelligence (AI) platforms on state devices and networks, and (2) banning use of genetic sequencers and related operational/research software produced by defined “foreign adversaries” at medical and research facilities that receive state funds.
Key provisions
1. Prohibition on AI platforms of concern
- No state‑owned or state‑issued electronic device may be used to access an “artificial intelligence platform of concern.” State‑operated networks must block user access to such platforms.
- Agencies currently using such platforms must deactivate and delete related accounts and stop using the platforms.
- Exception: access is permitted when an agency is using the platform for law‑enforcement activities or cybersecurity investigations.
- Defined “artificial intelligence platform of concern”: explicitly names the AI model “DeepSeek” and any AI models owned or controlled (directly or indirectly) by Hangzhou DeepSeek Artificial Intelligence Basic Technology Research Company (and its successors/subsidiaries), and more broadly any AI model controlled by a “country of concern.”
- Defined “country of concern”: People’s Republic of China (including Hong Kong), Cuba, Iran, DPRK (North Korea), Russian Federation, and Venezuela. (Taiwan is excluded.)
- Prohibition on genetic sequencers and software (inserted from SB 234)
- No medical facility or research facility that receives state monies may use genetic sequencers or operational/research software for genetic analysis that are produced in or by:
- a foreign adversary; a state‑owned enterprise of a foreign adversary; a company domiciled in a foreign adversary; or a company‑owned/controlled subsidiary of such a company.
- Defined terms include “foreign adversary” (list includes China, Russia, Iran, DPRK, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, and allows the Governor, with the Adjutant General, to designate others), “genetic sequencer,” “operational or research software,” “medical facility,” and “research facility.”
- All prohibited equipment/software that is not permanently disabled must be removed and replaced with compliant alternatives.
- Reimbursement: subject to appropriations, facilities may request reimbursement up to replacement cost from the State Treasurer (must include purchase orders; request deadline Oct 1, 2025).
- Severability: genetic sequencer provisions include a severability clause to preserve enforceable portions if any part is invalidated.
Who is affected
- All state agencies (broadly defined) and employees using state‑owned/issued devices or state networks.
- Medical and research facilities that receive state monies (including pass‑through federal funds) and conduct genetic analysis or related research.
- Vendors and manufacturers domiciled in, controlled by, or affiliated with specified foreign adversaries or countries of concern (e.g., DeepSeek/Hangzhou DeepSeek and related entities).
Fiscal and implementation notes
- The Office of Information Technology Services reported no known current state use of the named AI model and indicated the AI prohibition would have no fiscal effect on OITS.
- Replacement of genetic sequencers may impose costs on affected facilities; reimbursement is available only if appropriated by the Legislature and requests are timely (by Oct 1, 2025).
- Enforcement, blocking and account deactivation are operational responsibilities of state agencies and network operators.
Limitations and implementation considerations
- The AI prohibition includes a narrow named model plus a broad control‑based definition; enforcement may require technical identification of “control” and vendor provenance.
- The genetic sequencer ban hinges on supplier origin/control and on the Governor/Adjutant General’s authority to designate additional “foreign adversaries,” which may affect scope over time.
- Legal challenges (e.g., preemption, trade, procurement, or constitutional claims) could affect implementation; the bill provides severability for the genetic sequencer section.
