Emerging Tech Legislation

Another day, another significant development in AI governance: a leaked White House draft Executive Order titled “Eliminating State Law Obstruction of National AI Policy” signals a major shift in US direction. While still a draft, it points toward a single national AI framework and a potential rollback of State-level protections that directly affect hiring, workforce technology and algorithmic accountability. Key points for HR and TA leaders: 1. Federal challenge to State AI laws The draft frames State AI safety, transparency and anti-discrimination rules as barriers to innovation and directs the government to challenge or pre-empt them — explicitly referencing California and Colorado. This could weaken emerging safeguards that were beginning to shape responsible AI use in hiring and employee management. 2. Creation of an AI Litigation Task Force The Attorney General would establish a unit dedicated to contesting State AI laws, including those requiring disclosures, risk assessments or bias-mitigation measures — tools many HR teams rely on to assess fairness. 3. Funding pressure on States Federal grants could be restricted for States that enforce their AI laws, reducing the likelihood that State-level worker protections are implemented or maintained. 4. Toward a single federal AI standard The FCC, FTC and the Administration would explore federal rules and legislation designed to override State requirements and establish a uniform national framework — likely less protective for workers and jobseekers than existing State efforts. Impact for HR and TA If advanced, this approach could move the US away from transparency and bias-mitigation requirements that several States have begun to adopt. Organisations basing their governance on California- or Colorado-style obligations may need to reassess their approach. EU comparison This direction diverges sharply from the EU, which is strengthening and harmonising protections through GDPR updates, the Digital Omnibus, and binding high-risk AI obligations for recruitment and workforce management. Global HR teams may soon face two opposing models: a protective, accountability-driven EU framework and a lighter, pre-emptive US framework. I’ll continue monitoring developments. If you need support aligning your HR AI governance to these emerging regimes, feel free to reach out.

I'm so proud to share Coalition for Health AI (CHAI)'s first version of our Legislative Scan on AI Transparency in Healthcare. AI is rapidly transforming healthcare, and states have moved quickly to fill the policy vacuum. As of June 30, 2025, 46 states have introduced more than 250 AI-related bills impacting healthcare, and 17 states have enacted 27 of them into law. #Transparency is emerging as a foundational theme to ensure patients, providers, and payers must understand when and how AI is being used in order to make informed decisions, maintain trust, and balance innovation with safeguards. We scanned all bills that touch on Transparency, arranged them by theme, and started a commentary on where states are converging vs diverging. We made the decision to cast a wider net, including bills not only on transparency and disclosure, but also those with adjacent requirements (e.g. quality assurance or human oversight). What we found in this first scan: 1. Human Oversight as a Foundational Principle: Nearly every bill affirms that AI cannot replace clinical judgment, requiring a “human-in-the-loop” for medical necessity and provider decisions. 2. From Point-in-Time Approval to Continuous Oversight: States are moving toward lifecycle governance, mandating periodic reviews, impact assessments, and even third-party audits. 3. Use Cases Driving Regulation: Most activity clusters around utilization review and prior authorization, with growing laws on direct provider use and patient-facing tools (like chatbots in mental health). 4. Safety and Bias Mitigation as Statutory Duties: States are codifying requirements to prevent discriminatory or unsafe outcomes, with some incorporating National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standards or mandating bias testing and documentation. This is Version 1.0. The legislative landscape is evolving rapidly, and this report is meant to be a living resource. We’ll be updating, refining, and building on this analysis with additional educational materials and proprietary research. 👉 Read the full report here: https://lnkd.in/ezYebyEz Huge thanks to the CHAI Policy Team & Policy Workgroup (Lauren Kahre, MPH, Daniel Oo, Karolina Pencina) and our phenomenal designer Ann Li for bringing this to life. Brian Anderson, MD Brenton Hill, JD, MHA Merage Ghane, Ph.D. Anthony DiDonato Gregory Shemancik, MHA Tom Kirby Nirav R. Shah Umair A. Shah, M.D., M.P.H. This, as with everything we do at CHAI, is a first version in a continuously evolving field, and I'd be grateful for recommendations, thoughts or questions to improve future iterations.

🚨 𝗜𝗧 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟭 – 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲: 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗽𝘀 & 𝗧𝗲𝗰𝗵 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗲 The Government has notified the IT (Intermediary Guidelines & Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026, effective 20 Feb 2026. This is a big moment for India’s startup and emerging tech ecosystem, especially for teams building with AI, GenAI, creator tools, SaaS platforms, and social apps. Why this matters 👇 🔹 𝗗𝗲𝗲𝗽𝗳𝗮𝗸𝗲 & 𝗔𝗜 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗜𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝘄 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 “𝗦𝘆𝗻𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻” (AI-generated audio, video, images) is explicitly defined. Platforms enabling such creation are now responsible for preventing misuse and illegal content. 🔹 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗟𝗮𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 & 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗲𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 AI-generated content must be clearly labelled and embedded with persistent metadata/provenance markers. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥. 🔹 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗗𝘂𝗲 𝗗𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝘀 Intermediaries must deploy automated safeguards to block unlawful synthetic media (deepfake impersonation, non-consensual imagery, false records, etc.). Significant social media platforms must require users to declare AI-generated content before publishing. 🔹 𝗙𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗧𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 Takedown and response windows are now significantly shorter, in some cases, down to hours. 🔹 𝗨𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 & 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 Non-compliant users may face account suspension, disclosure of their identities to victims, and penalties under applicable laws. India is moving toward AI governance through platform accountability, requiring startups to embed 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗔𝗜 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲-𝗯𝘆-𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘀 covering labelling, audit trails, automated moderation, and risk controls. At the same time, AI innovation is encouraged, 𝘂𝗻𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝘆𝗻𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 in India’s digital ecosystem 🔁 If you’re building in AI or digital platforms, now is the time to align product, policy, and compliance early. #AIRegulation #ITRules2026 #ResponsibleAI #StartupEcosystem #GenAI #Deepfakes #TechPolicy #ComplianceByDesign

AI Regulatory Landscape: What Changed in October 2025 ▪️🇪🇺 European Union Two new AI strategies launched on October 8: one to “Apply AI” for industry and public services, and another for “AI in Science” supporting research, backed by €600 million in Horizon Europe funding. The AI Act Service Desk & Observatory debuted to guide compliance. The EDPS issued guidance on generative AI and data protection (Oct 28), warning about bias and hallucinations. Consultations opened on AI Act transparency and liability rules. The EU+UNESCO’s FutureProof Education initiative is bringing AI into classrooms. CEN/CENELEC continue AI standards work; ISO announced a global AI Standards Summit for December 2025. ▪️🇺🇸 United States California’s SB 53 (Transparency in Frontier AI Act) mandates disclosure and state review of frontier AI models. Child safety safeguards introduced via AB 316/489, and AB 853 requires AI developer record-keeping. Federal 30-day AI Strategy consultation (Oct 1-31) closed with no draft policy yet. IEEE proposed new AI standards: P2976 (Explainable AI) and P2863 (AI Governance). NIST continued outreach on its AI Risk Management Framework. ▪️🇬🇧 United Kingdom The October 21 Blueprint announced “AI Growth Labs” to pilot sector-specific sandboxes in health and energy, with relaxed rules. October 31 Judicial Guidance directs courts to validate AI outputs and protect confidentiality. AI legislation remains targeted for 2026. ▪️🇨🇳 China Cybersecurity Law amendment (effective Jan 2026) embeds AI promotion and ethical governance into national law. CAC/NDRC guidelines (Oct 11) guide government AI use with lifecycle management and data controls. Tightened export enforcement targets U.S. AI chips like Nvidia H100. AI standards development and voluntary ethics codes advance under CAC oversight. ▪️🇨🇦 Canada Public consultation (Oct 1-31), led by the AI & Digital Minister, seeks input on R&D, talent, trust, ethics, and infrastructure. No new AI law yet; draft legislation expected in 2026. ▪️🇯🇵 Japan Draft AI Basic Plan emphasizes balancing growth and risk under Japan’s AI Act. PM Sanae Takaichi elevated AI to a national security priority on Oct 15. U.S.–Japan Technology Prosperity MOU (Oct 28) establishes joint AI policy and export framework for a shared “AI ecosystem.” ▪️🇦🇺 Australia The “Guidance for AI Adoption” (Oct 17) outlines six core responsible AI practices, aligning with ISO 42001 and NIST AI RMF standards. No new legislation yet; regulatory debate deferred to 2026. ▪️🌐 Global UNESCO + EU FutureProof Education initiative launched Oct 17. U.S.–Japan and U.S.–Korea tech pacts bolster AI co-development and supply-chain resilience. ISO AI Summit (Dec 2025) and IEEE standards ballots advance global harmonization. OECD updated AI compute and investment dashboards (Oct 29). #AIGovernance #AIRegulation

Senate Bill 53 (SB 53) by Senator Scott Wiener Overview: Senate Bill 53 (SB 53), authored by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) in the 2025-2026 California legislative session, is a significant piece of legislation focused on regulating advanced artificial intelligence (AI) models, fostering AI innovation, and protecting whistleblowers. It has been described as a first-in-the-nation effort to establish transparency requirements for AI safety plans and to create infrastructure for responsible AI development. Key Provisions of SB 53 Transparency for AI Safety Plans: Requires developers of advanced AI models to publicly disclose their safety plans, ensuring accountability and oversight in how these models are developed and deployed. Aims to address risks associated with powerful AI systems by mandating transparency in safety protocols. Creation of CalCompute: Establishes a public cloud compute cluster called CalCompute, designed to provide researchers, startups, and small businesses with access to computational resources for AI development. Promotes equitable access to AI innovation, reducing barriers for smaller entities to compete in the AI space. AI Whistleblower Protections: Introduces protections for individuals who report safety concerns or ethical issues related to AI development, encouraging accountability within the industry. Legislative Status As of September 30, 2025: SB 53 has passed both houses of the California Legislature and is currently enrolled, awaiting the signature of Governor Gavin Newsom. If signed into law, it will set a precedent as the first state-level legislation in the U.S. to impose such AI safety and transparency requirements. Context and Significance Wiener’s Focus on AI: Senator Wiener has been a vocal advocate for regulating emerging technologies while fostering innovation. SB 53 builds on his prior work, such as SB 1047 (2024), which aimed to regulate frontier AI models but was vetoed by Governor Newsom due to concerns about stifling innovation. SB 53 appears to take a more balanced approach, emphasizing transparency and public access to AI resources. Public and Industry Response: The bill has garnered support for its focus on safety and equity in AI development but has also faced scrutiny from tech industry groups concerned about regulatory burdens. Wiener has emphasized that the bill is designed to be pro-innovation while addressing legitimate safety concerns. Additional Notes If you meant a different bill (e.g., from another year or state), please clarify the context (e.g., topic, jurisdiction, or session year). For more details on SB 53 or to track its progress, visit Senator Wiener’s official legislation page: https://lnkd.in/gP6YQ2kG or the California Legislative Information website: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.

What's the best approach to AI legislation - principles or prescription?   Despite the AI Act being only recently adopted, the EU is already considering adjustments in response to industry concerns and changing geopolitical dynamics, particularly pressure from the US.   The European Commission is trying to make AI rules easier to comply with, aiming to boost investment and competitiveness over fears that the AI Act imposes premature and burdensome regulations on a still-developing industry.   Civil society and digital rights groups warn that simplifying the rules must not weaken their protective intent, abandon the core principles or undermine the laws effectiveness.   This debate over compliance and deregulation exacerbates tensions between various parties including the Commission and member states and raises questions about the overly prescriptive approach taken by the EU.   While the EU opens the door to reworking their AI rulebook, in the UK we are still awaiting any sign of AI legislation, unless we include private members bills. (One put forward by my colleague Tim Clement-Jones on public sector use of algorithms and automated decision making and my own AI regulation bill).   A UK AI Bill is painfully overdue. There is a critical need for a cross-sector approach as the current MO continues to further entrench problematic regulatory gaps (ie. sectors where there is no specific regulator and/or ‘diffuse’ regulation).   One such area is recruitment and employment. To this end,  I will be bringing forward AI specific amendments in the employment rights bill when it arrives in committee stage in the UK House of Lords (from 29 April).   My AI (Regulation) Bill proposes a cross-sector, principles-based approach that would be robust but flexible, focused on boosting regulatory capability (Clause 1 proposes an AI authority) and putting key principles on a statutory basis. The Information Commissioner's Office, the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum (DRCF) and the AI Security Institute are all doing great work but we need to fiercely focus and turbocharge regulatory capacity for the challenges and opportunities of AI.   We are in an enviable position of being able to learn from the EU's experience with the AI Act but we positively must act to provide greater clarity on the UK approach. I will be asking the Minister, at Government questions, on April 29 whether HMG plan to introduce cross-sector legislation on AI in 2025.   https://lnkd.in/e3AApRZa   It is time to legislate on AI for the UK, for citizen, consumer, for creative, for innovator, for investor: our data our decisions our AI futures.  

🚨 Today, the United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs released a discussion draft aimed at providing regulatory clarity for digital assets. The draft lays out a broad framework for classifying digital assets, splitting oversight between the SEC and CFTC, strengthening investor protections, and expanding AML obligations across the crypto ecosystem. It also launches a first-of-its-kind public-private pilot program to enhance information-sharing between law enforcement and the crypto ecosystem—a step toward real-time collaboration to stop illicit finance. There is lots in here, but this post focuses on AML. Title II, “Protecting Against Illicit Finance,” outlines AML and sanctions compliance requirements in the space. Section 201 directs Treasury, in coordination with federal financial regulators, to establish a risk-focused examination framework for evaluating how financial institutions comply with the Bank Secrecy Act and counter-terrorism financing laws. This includes assessing suspicious activity reporting, customer due diligence, and compliance under Title 31. Section 202 creates a five-year pilot to improve information-sharing between law enforcement and the private sector. The Attorney General, working with FinCEN and DHS, will designate at least 20 firms—including crypto companies, money services businesses and blockchain intelligence companies—to participate. The pilot program aims to enable real-time threat collaboration. Agencies like DOJ, FBI, and DEA can securely share information on typologies, threats, and risks via portals, secure email, or monthly meetings. Designated participants receive liability protection when sharing threat information in good faith. The model mirrors Section 314(b) but is tailored to the blockchain space. Section 203 further strengthens this ecosystem by establishing an Independent Financial Technology Working Group, chaired by Treasury. The group includes representatives from Treasury, DOJ, IRS, DHS, DEA, and private-sector participants across crypto, blockchain intelligence companies like TRM Labs, finance, and civil society. It will conduct research and develop proposals to counter illicit use of digital assets and other emerging technologies. The group must report findings annually to Congress for four years. Finally, the bill mandates a 180-day public strategy from the White House detailing how adversaries and sanctioned entities exploit digital assets to evade sanctions—and how the U.S. will respond. One of the coolest things about this draft is that it moves beyond market structure by embedding illicit finance prevention, public-private partnership, and operational engagement into the heart of crypto regulation. While not final, the proposal lays a serious foundation for integrating crypto into the US financial system—securely and responsibly. We look forward to working with Senate Banking and policy makers across Capitol Hill to build a safer financial system.

I've been tracking the legislative landscape related to AI generated CSAM, and while there is still a lot of work to do it's encouraging to see states stepping up to address this threat. Many states are actively working to criminalize the creation, distribution, and possession of AI-generated CSAM, recognizing that these images inflict real harm, often by exploiting the likeness of actual children or through the training data used. I thought I would share some of the resources that are tracking this type of legislation across the country. This is a rapidly evolving area of law, and these resources help keep up with the changes. Resource data may differ due to varying definitions of what constitutes "AI-generated" or "computer-edited" CSAM, how broadly they interpret existing laws to cover new tech, and their update schedules. Some trackers might only count laws explicitly mentioning "AI," while others include broader "digital manipulation" statutes, leading to different numbers of states with relevant legislation. These differences highlight the ongoing challenge of crafting and tracking laws for a quickly advancing technology, making it vital to consult multiple sources for a comprehensive view. Here are some of the key resources that are currently tracking legislation surrounding gen-AI CSAM: ▶️ Enough Abuse® - State Laws Criminalizing AI-generated or Computer-Edited CSAM: This website provides a comprehensive overview of which states have enacted laws specifically criminalizing AI-generated or computer-edited CSAM. It includes a map and details on variations in state laws, highlighting states with more detailed statutes and those that don't yet include AI-generated images in their CSAM definitions. https://lnkd.in/eAuw5e5y ▶️ National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) - Artificial Intelligence Legislation: NCSL is a valuable resource for tracking all types of AI-related legislation at the state level, including those pertaining to CSAM. They often provide summaries of enacted and pending legislation across all 50 states. https://lnkd.in/eERC4W74 (Note: Look for their "2025 Legislation" or similar updated pages) ▶️ BCLP (Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner) - US state-by-state AI legislation snapshot: This law firm provides a concise snapshot of proposed, failed, and enacted AI regulatory bills across the US, including those related to CSAM. https://lnkd.in/e6f6HMYr ▶️ Orrick - U.S. AI Law Tracker (PDF): Orrick provides a downloadable PDF tracker that details US AI laws by state, often including specific provisions related to AI CSAM. https://lnkd.in/esZH6AFv #CSAM #genAI #legislation

𝗡𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘅 𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗜 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: 𝗔 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗵𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗚𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗲 As AI continues to reshape industries and societies, the need for effective regulation becomes increasingly imperative. This new consultation paper offers a comprehensive overview of emerging regulatory approaches worldwide, providing valuable insights for policymakers, industry leaders, and researchers. 𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀: 𝗔 𝗠𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸: Explore a diverse range of regulatory strategies, from principles-based to liability-based approaches. 𝗔𝗱𝗮𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗘𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗟𝗮𝘄𝘀: Discover how to leverage existing regulations for AI governance while addressing emerging challenges. 𝗥𝗶𝘀𝗸-𝗕𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁: Understand the importance of assessing and mitigating AI risks to ensure responsible development and deployment. 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗚𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲: Learn how to address key questions before adopting AI regulations, considering ethical, societal, and economic implications. 𝗘𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗧𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀: Stay informed about the latest AI regulatory developments globally, including international cooperation and best practices. 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗲𝘀: Analyze real-world examples of AI regulation in action, providing valuable lessons and insights. 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁: Explore strategies for involving diverse stakeholders in the regulatory process, fostering trust and collaboration. 𝗘𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀: Address ethical concerns related to AI development and deployment, ensuring that AI benefits society while minimizing risks. A/C: Juan David Gutiérrez Rodríguez #AI #AIRegulation #Policy #Technology #Government

Bipartisan momentum is building around biotech policy, and last week’s introduction of the National Biotechnology Initiative Act of 2025 is a signal worth watching. The bill proposes the creation of a National Biotechnology Coordination Office within the Executive Branch. Its goal is to streamline fragmented regulatory processes and align federal biotech efforts under a unified national strategy. This move comes directly from the recommendations of the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology, which warns that the US is at risk of losing its leadership edge to China. With China currently producing ~90% of global APIs, the supply chain stakes are evident. For biotech companies and investors, this legislation, alongside ongoing efforts to onshore manufacturing, could mark a significant shift. Simplified regulatory pathways may accelerate innovation timelines, while new infrastructure investments could reduce foreign dependencies and reshape the sector’s global footprint. It’s a reminder that the future of biotech will be shaped not only by scientific breakthroughs, but by how and where they are advanced on the global stage.