Strategic Federal Policy and Demand Signal Radar: Comprehensive Analysis for 2025–2026

Full report

On this page

Executive Summary

The regulatory and operational landscape of the United States Federal Government in the 2025–2026 transitionary period represents a historic and highly asymmetrical inflection point across artificial intelligence (AI) governance, software modernization, cybersecurity enforcement, and digital accessibility compliance. Based on an exhaustive review of recently published Federal Register rules, notices, and executive actions, a distinct overarching strategy has materialized that will fundamentally alter the federal procurement and technology vendor ecosystem for the next decade. The current administration has executed a sharp, whole-of-government pivot toward aggressive AI deregulation, explicitly prioritizing geopolitical dominance and unfettered domestic innovation over localized algorithmic risk management. This includes the unprecedented preemptive invalidation of state-level AI constraints. Simultaneously, however, federal authorities are cementing rigorous, non-negotiable cybersecurity supply chain mandates—most notably the final implementation of the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program and the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act (CIRCIA). Furthermore, systemic delays in civil rights digital accessibility mandates expose profound structural vulnerabilities within public sector IT infrastructures. This intelligence report synthesizes these public signals to forecast future federal technology capability demands, moving beyond surface-level regulatory tracking to map the deep, second- and third-order operational burdens these policies place on federal agencies. The analysis strictly distinguishes explicit policy signals from standard operational notices, tracing the causal relationships between regulatory shifts and the unavoidable modernization investments agencies must make to comply with their own mandates. Each identified signal is paired with a bounded, deterministic account-research action, ensuring that vendor ecosystem positioning is tied directly to real agency operational needs, capability gaps, and programmatic bottlenecks rather than speculative or untargeted outreach.

Section 1: The AI Governance Reversal and the "America First" Innovation Doctrine

The most consequential demand signals of 2025 and 2026 stem from a coordinated reversal of previous AI safety and oversight frameworks. The federal posture has shifted from mitigating the societal risks of AI to treating AI as a critical sovereign capability that must be unleashed to secure national and economic dominance. This paradigm shift was formally initiated by Executive Order 14179, "Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence," signed on January 23, 20251. This order explicitly revoked preceding administration policies (such as EO 14148 and its subsequent directives) that the current executive branch identified as acting as bureaucratic barriers to American AI innovation1. The stated purpose of this new doctrine is to develop AI systems free from ideological bias or engineered social agendas, leveraging free markets to maintain the United States' position as the global leader in artificial intelligence1. To operationalize this, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, and the National Security Advisor were mandated to develop a comprehensive Artificial Intelligence Action Plan within 180 days1. The ripples of this Action Plan are now highly visible across multiple civilian and defense agencies, manifesting as a mandate to purge regulatory friction.

Absolute Federal Preemption of State AI Legislation

A critical development in this deregulatory push is Executive Order 14365, "Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence," published in the Federal Register in late 20252. The order identifies a severe threat to American AI supremacy: state-by-state regulation. The executive branch argues that a patchwork of fifty different regulatory regimes makes compliance disproportionately challenging for start-ups and hinders the velocity of innovation2. The order explicitly targets state-level algorithmic discrimination laws, citing a Colorado statute as an example of legislation that allegedly forces AI models to embed ideological bias or produce artificially altered, false results to avoid differential treatment metrics on protected groups2. Furthermore, the administration asserts that such state laws impermissibly regulate beyond state borders, thereby impinging on interstate commerce2. To counter this, EO 14365 establishes an absolute federal preemption doctrine to create a "minimally burdensome national standard"2. The enforcement mechanisms mandated by this order represent massive operational signals for legal, technical, and compliance vendors. The order mandates the creation of an AI Litigation Task Force under the Attorney General within 30 days2. The sole responsibility of this task force is to actively litigate and challenge state AI laws that conflict with the federal policy of AI dominance, asserting that such laws unconstitutionally regulate the technology2. Furthermore, the order directs all executive departments and agencies to assess their discretionary grant programs and explicitly condition federal funding on states refusing to enact conflicting AI legislation2. This creates a highly complex operational environment for federal agencies. Grant-making bodies across the government must now implement new compliance monitoring systems to track state legislative dockets before awarding discretionary funds, adding a layer of legislative intelligence gathering to the standard grant adjudication process. Concurrently, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a Policy Statement in July 2026 concerning the "Suppression of Accuracy in Artificial Intelligence Systems"4. The FTC warned AI developers that altering or steering the output of their systems contrary to consumers' reasonable expectations—even if attempted in compliance with state laws like Colorado's revised Artificial Intelligence Act—may constitute deceptive steering in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act4. The second-order effect of this interagency coordination is a massive operational burden on the DOJ and the FTC to monitor, benchmark, and investigate AI models. To determine if a model has been "deceptively steered" to satisfy a state legislature, federal attorneys and technical subject matter experts must audit black-box models, ingest complex algorithmic training data, and analyze statistical outputs. The DOJ and FTC currently lack the organic, scalable cloud infrastructure and data science workforce required to ingest petabytes of model weights and conduct these deep technical audits during active litigation.

The "Secure Frontier Model Deployment" Mandate

While the civilian side of the government focuses on deregulation and preemption, the national security apparatus is focused on securing advanced AI capabilities against adversarial exploitation. Executive Order 14409, "Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security," issued in June 2026, explicitly links AI dominance with America First cybersecurity efforts5. The order mandates that within 30 days, the Committee on National Security Systems must prioritize the cyber defense of National Security Systems (NSS) by taking expeditious action to harden them against external threats5. More critically, EO 14409 establishes the "Secure Frontier Model Deployment" initiative5. Within 60 days, a coalition including the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War (acting through the Director of the NSA), and the Secretary of Homeland Security (acting through the Director of CISA), in consultation with the National Cyber Director, is required to formulate an AI cybersecurity task force5. This task force is charged with a monumental technical challenge: developing and maintaining a classified benchmarking process to assess the advanced cyber capabilities of AI models5. This process will determine the exact mathematical and capability threshold at which an AI model should be designated a "covered frontier model"5. Once a model hits this threshold, the developers are subjected to a strict national security requirement: they must provide the Federal Government with access to these covered frontier models for a period of up to 30 days before they plan to release such models to other trusted partners or the public5. This access is subject to strict confidentiality, cybersecurity, insider-risk, and intellectual-property protections5. Furthermore, the Attorney General is directed to prioritize the enforcement of federal criminal laws against anyone utilizing AI to illegally access or damage computers, explicitly targeting the use of AI agents to unlawfully access data5. The demand signal generated by the "Secure Frontier Model Deployment" initiative is unprecedented in its technical complexity. The NSA and CISA are effectively mandated to build a highly classified, air-gapped, multi-tenant cloud computing environment capable of hosting and executing multi-trillion parameter AI models. They must develop automated red-teaming software that can interact with these models at machine speed to hunt for advanced cyber vulnerabilities, zero-day exploit generation capabilities, and autonomous hacking behaviors within a strict 30-day window. If the government lacks the compute power or the analytical software to evaluate these models within 30 days, they risk delaying the commercial deployment of American AI, which directly contradicts the administration's core policy of unhindered innovation. Therefore, the procurement of scalable, secure cloud architecture and AI evaluation frameworks by the intelligence community is an absolute, unavoidable operational necessity.

Eradicating Regulatory Mismatches and Managing AI Diffusion

The push to modernize the federal government's administrative state to accommodate AI is further evidenced by the Office of Science and Technology Policy's (OSTP) Request for Information (RFI) on Regulatory Reform on Artificial Intelligence, published in September 20256. Driven by the White House's AI Action Plan, the OSTP seeks to identify existing federal statutes, regulations, agency rules, guidance, and administrative processes that unnecessarily hinder AI adoption6. The RFI highlights a profound bureaucratic friction: most existing federal regulatory regimes were developed before the rise of modern AI technologies and rest on assumptions about human-operated systems6. The OSTP identifies specific barriers, including "Regulatory Mismatches"—where existing rules mandate human supervision, documentation practices, or static testing that do not align with continuously updating AI capabilities—and "Structural Incompatibilities," where legal frameworks explicitly assume statutory human decision-makers or prohibit automated data practices6. The RFI notes that applying static safety standards and certification processes, such as those built for human drivers in transportation or human clinicians in healthcare, to continuously learning systems creates severe market challenges6. The federal government is crowdsourcing the identification of these bottlenecks to pave the way for a massive deregulation of automated systems. Concurrently, the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is grappling with the complexities of AI proliferation through its "Framework for Artificial Intelligence Diffusion" interim final rule, published in January 20257. This rule revises the Export Administration Regulations' (EAR) controls on advanced computing integrated circuits (ICs) and introduces a novel, highly complex control on artificial intelligence model weights for certain advanced, closed-weight, dual-use AI models7. Effective in early 2025, with compliance dates extending to May 2025 and specific elements delayed until January 2026, the rule requires BIS to rapidly scale its capacity to process complex export licenses for intangible software assets rather than just physical goods8. The rule also updates the Data Center Validated End User authorization to facilitate the export of advanced computing to approved end users to cultivate secure ecosystems7. The second-order effect of the BIS rule is an urgent, systemic need for software modernization within the Department of Commerce. Legacy export control systems were designed to track physical hardware, shipping manifests, and tangible dual-use technologies. Auditing and licensing intangible model weights requires advanced cryptographic hashing, network traffic analysis, and computational threshold verification. BIS must be able to verify that exported model weights are not being covertly transferred to prohibited end-users or utilized in non-compliant data centers. This requires a leap in data analytics and compliance workflow modernization, transforming BIS from a hardware tracking agency into a software and algorithmic intelligence body.

Section 2: Supply Chain Illumination and the Cyber Reporting Apparatus

While the federal posture on artificial intelligence is aggressively deregulatory to foster rapid commercial innovation, its posture on cybersecurity, critical infrastructure protection, and the defense industrial base (DIB) supply chain is defined by strict, verifiable, and non-negotiable compliance. The era of self-attestation is officially over, replaced by a paradigm of mandatory third-party verification and rapid incident telemetry reporting. This dual-track approach—freeing the software layer while locking down the network and hardware layers—defines the mid-2020s federal technology strategy.

The Finalization and Implementation of CMMC 2.0

Throughout 2024 and 2025, the Department of Defense (DoD) finalized the regulatory framework for the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program, fundamentally altering how the government procures goods and services. The program's history is rooted in the failure of the previous self-attestation model. Under the old DFARS clause 252.204-7012, defense contractors simply self-attested that they would implement the security requirements specified in NIST SP 800-171 to protect sensitive unclassified information, often utilizing open-ended Plans of Action and Milestones (POA\&Ms) indefinitely to mask unimplemented security controls9. DoD Inspector General audits repeatedly illuminated the inadequacy of this system, finding that contractors routinely failed to implement mandated system security requirements for safeguarding Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)10. To solve this policy problem, CMMC introduces the element of mandatory verification. Moving away from the highly complex CMMC 1.0 framework—which included five levels and unique maturity processes—the DoD reviewed and streamlined the program into CMMC 2.011. CMMC 2.0 establishes three progressively advanced levels of cybersecurity standards: Level 1 (Foundational) for Federal Contract Information (FCI), Level 2 (Advanced) aligned closely with NIST SP 800-171 Rev 2 for CUI, and Level 3 (Expert) focused on mitigating Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs)9. The regulatory finalization occurred in two parts. First, the 32 CFR part 170 final rule officially established the program mechanics and the accreditation body standards, effective December 16, 202412. Second, the 48 CFR Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) rules implemented the contractual mechanisms required to enforce CMMC11. The operational mechanics of CMMC 2.0 create a massive data aggregation and compliance tracking requirement for the DoD. The rule strictly prohibits contracting officers from awarding a contract, task order, or delivery order if an offeror does not have a current CMMC status posted in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) at the level required by the solicitation12. Offerors must provide CMMC Unique Identifiers (UIDs) issued by SPRS for each contractor information system that will process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI during performance12. Crucially, while CMMC 2.0 allows for POA\&Ms, they are strictly time-bound. For CMMC levels 2 and 3, a "Conditional CMMC Status" is permitted for a period not to exceed 180 days from the conditional assessment date12. An award can occur with this conditional status, but a "Final CMMC Status" is only achieved upon the successful, verified closeout of a valid POA\&M within that 180-day window12. Furthermore, the framework requires contractors to flow down the appropriate CMMC certification requirements to subcontractors throughout the entire supply chain10. The third-order implications of this rule for federal IT modernization are profound. The DoD is effectively transforming SPRS from a basic past-performance repository into a massive, real-time cyber telemetry and compliance database for the entire defense industrial base. The Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and the DoD Chief Information Officer (CIO) must ensure that SPRS possesses the database scalability, API integrations, and identity credentialing necessary to interact seamlessly with Certified Third-Party Assessment Organizations (C3PAOs), track thousands of CMMC UIDs, and monitor the automated 180-day countdowns for POA\&M closeouts. A failure in SPRS uptime or data latency will result in an immediate halt to defense procurement awards, making the modernization of SPRS a critical, non-discretionary federal priority.

CIRCIA and the Critical Infrastructure Telemetry Flood

Running parallel to the DoD's supply chain security efforts is the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's (CISA) massive undertaking to implement the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022 (CIRCIA). Enacted to provide the federal government with unprecedented visibility into the cyber threat landscape, CIRCIA mandates that covered critical infrastructure entities report covered cyber incidents to CISA within 72 hours and ransomware payments within 24 hours14. The legislation explicitly authorizes CISA to request information and engage in administrative enforcement actions, including subpoenas, to compel non-compliant entities to disclose information14. CISA published the extensive Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in April 2024, detailing the highly prescriptive manner, form, and content of these reports14. The required content for a Covered Cyber Incident Report includes a deep description of the incident, the specific vulnerabilities exploited, security defenses bypassed, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs) utilized, information related to the identity of the perpetrator, and mitigation responses14. Ransom Payment Reports require similar forensic details, plus the amount paid and the results of the payment14. Furthermore, covered entities are required to submit supplemental reports promptly when "substantial new or different information" is discovered or when an incident is fully mitigated and resolved14. The regulatory burden of CIRCIA on the private sector is immense, prompting significant industry feedback. To refine the scope and manage industry friction, CISA scheduled a series of town hall meetings in February 2026 to solicit additional, highly targeted input18. CISA specifically seeks actionable intelligence on the impact of its size-based criterion (which captures entities that might not otherwise meet sector-based criteria), potential alternative sector-based criteria for Commercial Facilities, Dams, and Food/Agriculture sectors, and the use of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) risk tiers to define applicability18. CISA is also actively working to harmonize CIRCIA's reporting requirements with other agencies to invoke the "Substantially Similar Reporting Exception," such as aligning with the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) directives for pipeline facilities14. However, the most significant demand signal generated by CIRCIA is internal to CISA itself. Once the final rule takes effect, CISA will experience an exponential, continuous flood of highly technical incident reports. While the NPRM considered options like telephone or email reporting, it heavily favors and structures requirements around Automated/Machine-to-Machine reporting14. CISA must build an enterprise data ingestion engine capable of securely receiving, authenticating, parsing, and triaging these machine-to-machine reports in real-time. Without highly advanced, AI-enabled data parsing and triage software to filter noise, identify systemic sector-wide threats, correlate disparate TTPs, and share tactical threat intelligence at machine speed, CIRCIA compliance will overwhelm CISA's human analytical workforce. The agency requires software modernization that translates raw compliance reporting into automated threat intelligence dissemination to fulfill the law's intent of reducing the risk of cyber incidents propagating across sectors15.

The Quantum Computing Readiness Mandate

Further compounding the cybersecurity burden on CISA is the mandate derived from National Security Memorandum 10 (Promoting United States Leadership in Quantum Computing While Mitigating Risks to Vulnerable Cryptographic Systems). The Federal Register reveals a strict, impending deadline: by December 1, 2025, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the Director of CISA, must prepare for a transition to cryptographic algorithms that are not vulnerable to a Cryptographically Relevant Quantum Computer (CRQC)19. This mandate operates alongside CIRCIA, indicating that CISA must simultaneously build massive data ingestion pipelines for incident reporting while migrating its own core cryptographic infrastructure to post-quantum standards. This creates a distinct demand for specialized cryptographic auditing and modernization services within DHS, as they must identify and replace vulnerable encryption protocols across all internal and public-facing infrastructure prior to the December 2025 deadline.

Section 3: Digital Accessibility, Civil Rights, and Systemic Implementation Friction

The federal government's approach to digital inclusion and civil rights has seen highly ambitious regulatory action, primarily driven by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In April and May of 2024, both agencies published sweeping final rules mandating strict adherence to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA for web content and mobile applications20. The DOJ's rule under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) targets state and local government entities. The DOJ explicitly asserts that in the modern era, inaccessible web content acts as a digital barrier equivalent to physical stairs for a wheelchair user, unlawfully precluding individuals with disabilities from accessing essential civic functions, including voting information, transit schedules, and due process of law20. The rule requires all web content, conventional electronic documents (e.g., PDFs), and mobile apps provided by public entities to conform to WCAG 2.1 AA20. Furthermore, the DOJ indicated its intent to conduct a Section 610 Review of its Title II and Title III regulations to assess their economic impact on small entities, signaling ongoing, intense regulatory scrutiny over state, local, and public accommodation accessibility22. Concurrently, HHS updated its Section 504 regulations to enforce similar web, mobile, and kiosk accessibility standards for programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance—a massive umbrella that covers hospitals, health clinics, childcare centers, social service agencies, and universities21. Crucially, the HHS rule expands deeply into the logic of medical and social service delivery, prohibiting discriminatory algorithms and crisis standards of care21. The regulation explicitly forbids the use of value assessment methods that discount the value of life extension on the basis of disability, prohibits medical futility determinations based on discriminatory assumptions, and mandates that parenting evaluation procedures in the child welfare system must not discriminate against parents or caregivers with disabilities21. This radically expands the definition of "accessibility" from front-end graphical user interfaces to back-end algorithmic logic, requiring deep, substantive evaluation of the software systems used in clinical and welfare settings.

The Remediation Bottleneck and Compliance Date Extensions

However, early 2026 Federal Register publications reveal critical, systemic implementation friction regarding the digital interface components of these rules. Both the DOJ and HHS were forced to publish Interim Final Rules (IFRs) extending the compliance dates for their respective web and mobile accessibility mandates23. The DOJ extended its original 2- and 3-year compliance deadlines to 3 and 4 years via an April 2026 IFR23. Similarly, HHS extended the compliance date for recipients with 15 or more employees to May 11, 2027, and for those with fewer than 15 employees to May 10, 202824. These extensions are not merely administrative adjustments; they serve as profound demand signals indicating systemic, structural failures in public sector and healthcare IT modernization. The extensions suggest that state, local, and healthcare entities fundamentally lack the internal software engineering capacity, budget, and vendor support required to retrofit decades of legacy HTML, millions of archived conventional electronic documents, and proprietary mobile applications to meet strict, highly technical WCAG 2.1 AA parameters. The causal relationship here is direct and actionable: the federal government has recognized a severe market failure in accessibility compliance capability and has extended the timeline, effectively creating a high-pressure, multi-year window for specialized GovTech vendors to provide automated remediation software, document tagging pipelines, and digital accessibility consulting. Furthermore, federal agencies themselves—which are obligated to monitor the civil rights compliance of their massive networks of grant recipients—now face a significant operational burden. Agencies like DOJ and HHS require advanced web-crawling capabilities, automated WCAG auditing software, and AI-driven document analysis tools to monitor state, local, and health sector compliance at scale, ensuring they can enforce the mandate once the extended deadlines finally expire.

Section 4: The Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation Overhaul

A subtler but structurally massive demand signal emerged in mid-2026 via the General Services Administration (GSA) and the FAR Council. Notice was published regarding "FAR Case 2026-001, Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation Overhaul Parts 1, 2, 4, 33, 39, 40, and 53," open for comment until July 23, 202625. This was immediately followed by FAR Case 2026-002, which overhauls Parts 6, 7, 10, and 1827. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) represents the core operating system of federal procurement. A "Revolutionary Overhaul" of this magnitude signifies a fundamental, structural rewriting of how the government defines, solicits, and manages all contracts. The proposed rules indicate significant shifts: Part 2 (Definitions of Words and Terms) is being holistically revised; Part 37 (Service Contracting) is being streamlined and simplified to reduce procedural friction; and Part 39 (Acquisition of Information Technology) is slated for modernization26.

The Ripple Effect on Agency Contract Management Systems

When the FAR undergoes a revolutionary rewrite, the legal text is only the first step. The immediate, inescapable second-order effect is that every single agency across the federal enterprise must urgently update their internal digital infrastructure. Contract writing systems (CWS), procurement databases, financial Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) tools, and lifecycle management software must be re-coded to reflect new clauses, altered definitions, and the newly streamlined workflows27. Legacy, monolithic contract management systems that rely on hard-coded logic linked to the old FAR structure will require extensive software modernization to prevent complete procurement standstills. If an agency's CWS cannot generate a solicitation with the newly defined clauses from the overhauled Part 2 or Part 39, that agency cannot buy goods or services. Furthermore, parallel notices regarding Information Collection demonstrate a simultaneous push to digitize and centralize compliance data reporting during this overhaul. The GSA published requests for comments on the Information Collection for an Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) Repository, moving accessibility compliance documentation from static PDFs into a centralized database, and updated collections for Privacy Training under FAR 52.224-3(d)26. This overhaul represents a massive horizontal demand signal. It does not target one specific agency; it targets the core administrative infrastructure of the entire executive branch. The agencies that maintain the largest contracting shops and the oldest legacy software—such as the DoD, DHS, HHS, and the VA—will be the most acutely impacted by the requirement to map new FAR logic into their proprietary software suites.

Works cited

1. Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence \- Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/31/2025-02172/removing-barriers-to-american-leadership-in-artificial-intelligence

2. Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence \- Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/12/16/2025-23092/ensuring-a-national-policy-framework-for-artificial-intelligence

3. Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/11/01/2023-24283/safe-secure-and-trustworthy-development-and-use-of-artificial-intelligence

4. Policy Statement Concerning the Suppression of Accuracy in Artificial Intelligence Systems, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/07/07/2026-13628/policy-statement-concerning-the-suppression-of-accuracy-in-artificial-intelligence-systems

5. Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security \- Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/06/05/2026-11415/promoting-advanced-artificial-intelligence-innovation-and-security

6. Notice of Request for Information; Regulatory Reform on Artificial Intelligence, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/26/2025-18737/notice-of-request-for-information-regulatory-reform-on-artificial-intelligence

7. Public Briefing on Framework for Artificial Intelligence Diffusion \- Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/15/2025-00637/public-briefing-on-framework-for-artificial-intelligence-diffusion

8. Framework for Artificial Intelligence Diffusion \- Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/15/2025-00636/framework-for-artificial-intelligence-diffusion

9. Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Program \- Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/12/26/2023-27280/cybersecurity-maturity-model-certification-cmmc-program

10. Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Assessing Contractor Implementation of Cybersecurity Requirements (DFARS Case 2019-D041), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/29/2020-21123/defense-federal-acquisition-regulation-supplement-assessing-contractor-implementation-of

11. Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) 2.0 Updates and Way Forward, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/17/2021-24880/cybersecurity-maturity-model-certification-cmmc-20-updates-and-way-forward

12. BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 204, 212, 217, and 252 \Docket \- Federal Register, [https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-17359.pdf

13. Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Program \- Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/10/15/2024-22905/cybersecurity-maturity-model-certification-cmmc-program

14. Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act (CIRCIA) Reporting Requirements, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/04/2024-06526/cyber-incident-reporting-for-critical-infrastructure-act-circia-reporting-requirements

15. Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022 Listening Sessions, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/09/12/2022-19550/cyber-incident-reporting-for-critical-infrastructure-act-of-2022-listening-sessions

16. Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act (CIRCIA) Reporting Requirements; Correction \- Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/06/03/2024-12084/cyber-incident-reporting-for-critical-infrastructure-act-circia-reporting-requirements-correction

17. Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act (CIRCIA) Reporting Requirements; Extension of Comment Period \- Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/06/2024-09505/cyber-incident-reporting-for-critical-infrastructure-act-circia-reporting-requirements-extension-of

18. CISA-2022-0010 Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act (CIRCIA) Rulemaking; Town Hall Meetings \- Federal Register, https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-02948.pdf

19. Sustaining Select Efforts To Strengthen the Nation's Cybersecurity and Amending Executive Order 13694 and Executive Order 14144 \- Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/06/11/2025-10804/sustaining-select-efforts-to-strengthen-the-nations-cybersecurity-and-amending-executive-order-13694

20. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities \- Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/24/2024-07758/nondiscrimination-on-the-basis-of-disability-accessibility-of-web-information-and-services-of-state

21. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/09/2024-09237/nondiscrimination-on-the-basis-of-disability-in-programs-or-activities-receiving-federal-financial

22. Regulatory Agenda \- Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/22/2025-18331/regulatory-agenda

23. Extension of Compliance Dates for Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities \- Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/04/20/2026-07663/extension-of-compliance-dates-for-nondiscrimination-on-the-basis-of-disability-accessibility-of-web?\_sp=a184d01b-a9cc-4054-b278-b105a0515961

24. Extension of Compliance Dates for Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Content and Mobile Applications of Recipients of Departmental Financial Assistance \- Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/11/2026-09266/extension-of-compliance-dates-for-nondiscrimination-on-the-basis-of-disability-accessibility-of-web

25. Federal Acquisition Regulation: Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation Overhaul Parts 1, 2, 4, 33, 39, 40, and 53 \- Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/06/23/2026-12559/federal-acquisition-regulation-revolutionary-federal-acquisition-regulation-overhaul-parts-1-2-4-33

26. Information Collection; Certain Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 28 Requirements, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/22/2026-10287/information-collection-certain-federal-acquisition-regulation-part-28-requirements

27. Federal Acquisition Regulation: Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation Overhaul Parts 6, 7, 10, 18, 26, 37, and 41 \- Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/06/23/2026-12560/federal-acquisition-regulation-revolutionary-federal-acquisition-regulation-overhaul-parts-6-7-10-18

28. Information Collection; Privacy Training \- Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/22/2026-10289/information-collection-privacy-training?ref=queenstreetanalytics.org