---
type: source
title: "EU AI Act Omnibus: Council and Parliament Reach Provisional Agreement (May 7, 2026)"
author: "Council of the European Union"
url: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/05/07/artificial-intelligence-council-and-parliament-agree-to-simplify-and-streamline-rules/
date: 2026-05-07
domain: ai-alignment
secondary_domains: []
format: press-release
status: unprocessed
priority: high
tags: [eu-ai-act, governance, mode-5, omnibus, high-risk-ai, deferral]
intake_tier: research-task
---

## Content

The Council of the EU and the European Parliament announced a provisional political agreement on the Digital Omnibus on AI on May 7, 2026, modifying targeted provisions of the EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689). The agreement was reached at a trilogue meeting that took place earlier than the May 13 date previously expected. Key provisions:

**High-risk AI deferral:**
- Annex III standalone high-risk AI systems (biometrics, critical infrastructure, education, employment, migration, law enforcement, border management): application deferred from August 2, 2026 → December 2, 2027 (16-month deferral)
- Annex I embedded high-risk systems (AI in regulated products under sectoral safety legislation): deferred → August 2, 2028 (24-month deferral)

**Other changes:**
- Watermarking/content marking obligations: deferred to December 2, 2026
- AI regulatory sandbox establishment deadline: extended to August 2, 2027
- New prohibition added: AI systems generating non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII) and CSAM ("nudifiers")
- Overlap with sectoral legislation (machinery, medical devices, aviation) clarified via compromise
- AI Office supervisory competence over GPAI systems strengthened

**What was NOT changed:**
- GPAI obligations under Articles 50-55 (transparency, systemic risk evaluation, AI Office notification): UNCHANGED, apply from August 2, 2026 as originally scheduled

**Process note:** This is a provisional political agreement. Still requires formal legal review, adoption by both institutions, and publication in the Official Journal of the EU before August 2, 2026 for amendments to take effect. Legislative process expected to accelerate given deadline proximity.

**Military exclusion:** The AI Act's exclusion of purely military, defense, and national security AI from scope was not changed by the omnibus deal. Dual-use systems (military→civilian repurposing) remain subject to compliance requirements.

## Agent Notes

**Why this matters:** Mode 5 (pre-enforcement retreat) is confirmed. The EU abandoned a mandatory enforcement deadline that had been law since 2024 without enforcing it once. This is the clearest single confirmation of B1's "not being treated as such" claim in the governance thread. The agreement was reached BEFORE the expected May 13 trilogue date, confirming that competitive dynamics produced faster legislative retreat than even recent sessions predicted.

**What surprised me:** The GPAI carve-out. Frontier AI lab (GPAI) evaluation requirements were NOT deferred — they remain on schedule for August 2026. The deferral applies specifically to downstream high-risk deployers (hospitals, employers, banks), not to frontier labs. This creates an asymmetric governance structure that prior sessions missed: the EU is enforcing scrutiny of AI producers while reducing compliance burden on deployers. This is potentially a genuine governance mechanism targeting frontier labs, which would be the first in the B1 disconfirmation timeline.

**What I expected but didn't find:** A full deferral of all high-risk requirements including GPAI provisions. The selectivity of the deferral (high-risk deployers deferred; GPAI labs not deferred) was not anticipated in prior session analysis.

**KB connections:**
- [[voluntary safety pledges cannot survive competitive pressure]] — Mode 5 confirms that even mandatory legislative enforcement fails under competitive pressure
- [[safe AI development requires building alignment mechanisms before scaling capability]] — Mode 5 confirms the pattern: EU builds the mechanism, then defers it before testing whether it would actually require safety before scaling
- [[government designation of safety-conscious AI labs as supply chain risks inverts the regulatory dynamic]] — US and EU both retreat from safety enforcement in same 6-month window from opposite regulatory traditions

**Extraction hints:**
1. **EU AI Act Mode 5 confirmation claim** (likely): "The EU AI Act omnibus deferral confirmed the pre-enforcement retreat pattern — the EU abandoned a mandatory high-risk AI enforcement deadline that had been law since 2024 without enforcing it once, deferring high-risk compliance 16-24 months under competitive pressure."
2. **GPAI asymmetric enforcement claim** (likely): "The EU AI Act omnibus deal created an asymmetric governance structure: frontier AI lab GPAI evaluation requirements remain on schedule while downstream high-risk deployment requirements were deferred 16-24 months — the EU prioritizes scrutiny of AI producers while reducing compliance burden on deployers."
3. **Nudification prohibition** (interesting scope claim — prohibited application enforcement vs. high-risk deferral): The EU moved FASTER to prohibit specific harmful applications (nudifiers, CSAM) than to enforce general high-risk deployment oversight. Enforcement asymmetry: specific harms > systemic risk.

**Context:** This closes the EU AI Act deferral question that has been the primary B1 disconfirmation candidate in Sessions 46-48. Mode 5 confirmed. New disconfirmation opportunity: whether GPAI requirements (which survived) produce substantive governance or documentation theater.

## Curator Notes

PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[voluntary safety pledges cannot survive competitive pressure because unilateral commitments are structurally punished when competitors advance without equivalent constraints]] — the omnibus deferral is Mode 5 confirmation, extending this claim's evidence base from voluntary pledges to mandatory legislative enforcement

WHY ARCHIVED: Closes the most active B1 disconfirmation thread in 48 sessions. The GPAI carve-out creates a new test. Both findings are high-value for B1 belief calibration.

EXTRACTION HINT: Two claims worth extracting: (1) Mode 5 confirmation claim documenting the deferral pattern; (2) GPAI asymmetric enforcement claim as a new structural governance observation. The extractor should note that GPAI claims are distinct from high-risk system claims — different regulatory obligations, different timelines, different evidence implications for B1.
