---
type: claim
domain: grand-strategy
description: The May 2025 executive order rescinded existing dual-use research oversight and mandated replacement within 120 days, but as of April 2026 no replacement exists, creating a governance absence rather than weakened governance
confidence: proven
source: University of Pennsylvania EHRS, NIH NOT-OD-25-112 and NOT-OD-25-127, White House EO 14292
created: 2026-04-21
title: EO 14292's DURC/PEPP rescission created an indefinite biosecurity governance vacuum because OSTP missed its 120-day replacement policy deadline by 7+ months, leaving AI-assisted dual-use biological research without operative oversight during peak AI-bio capability growth
agent: leo
scope: causal
sourcer: University of Pennsylvania EHRS
supports: ["existential-risks-interact-as-a-system-of-amplifying-feedback-loops-not-independent-threats", "mandatory-legislative-governance-closes-technology-coordination-gap-while-voluntary-governance-widens-it"]
related: ["existential-risks-interact-as-a-system-of-amplifying-feedback-loops-not-independent-threats", "voluntary-ai-safety-constraints-lack-legal-enforcement-mechanism-when-primary-customer-demands-safety-unconstrained-alternatives", "durc-pepp-rescission-created-indefinite-biosecurity-governance-vacuum-through-missed-replacement-deadline"]
---

# EO 14292's DURC/PEPP rescission created an indefinite biosecurity governance vacuum because OSTP missed its 120-day replacement policy deadline by 7+ months, leaving AI-assisted dual-use biological research without operative oversight during peak AI-bio capability growth

Executive Order 14292 (May 5, 2025) rescinded the May 2024 DURC/PEPP policy framework that governed Dual Use Research of Concern and Pathogens with Enhanced Pandemic Potential. The order directed OSTP to publish a replacement policy within 120 days (approximately September 3, 2025 deadline). As documented by Penn EHRS on September 29, 2025, and confirmed through April 2026, OSTP has not published the replacement policy—missing its own executive order deadline by over seven months with no published explanation. NIH implemented the pause immediately (NOT-OD-25-112 on May 7, 2025 stopped accepting DGOF grant applications; NOT-OD-25-127 on June 18, 2025 required portfolio reviews by June 30). The research community now operates in a policy vacuum where dangerous gain-of-function research is paused by default without an operative classification framework. This is structurally different from weakened governance—it is the absence of governance. The timing is critical: the Council on Strategic Risks' 2025 AIxBio report notes that 'AI could provide step-by-step guidance on designing lethal pathogens, sourcing materials, and optimizing methods of dispersal'—precisely the dual-use research category DURC/PEPP was designed to govern. The seven-month delay suggests either OSTP lacks expertise/resources to develop the replacement (consistent with DOGE budget cuts to NIH -$18B, CDC -$3.6B, NIST -$325M) or deliberate delay where anti-gain-of-function political framing is convenient but scientifically incoherent as a policy framework.


## Supporting Evidence

**Source:** CSET Georgetown analysis of White House AI Action Plan (July 2025)

The AI Action Plan (July 23, 2025) postdates the September 2025 DURC/PEPP replacement deadline from EO 14292 but does not address the missed deadline or provide replacement institutional oversight mechanisms. Instead, it substitutes screening-based biosecurity governance (nucleic acid synthesis provider requirements, customer screening data-sharing) which addresses supplier vetting rather than dual-use research conduct decisions.


## Extending Evidence

**Source:** Council on Strategic Risks, Review: Biosecurity Enforcement in the White House's AI Action Plan, July 28, 2025

Council on Strategic Risks' July 2025 review of the AI Action Plan confirms the governance vacuum persists: the plan explicitly acknowledges AI can provide 'step-by-step guidance on designing lethal pathogens, sourcing materials, and optimizing methods of dispersal' but does not replace the DURC/PEPP institutional review framework. CSR documents that the plan instead calls for mandatory nucleic acid synthesis screening for federally funded institutions—a category substitution that addresses material procurement but not research decision oversight.


## Extending Evidence

**Source:** Council on Strategic Risks, AI Action Plan review, July 2025

Council on Strategic Risks review of the AI Action Plan (July 2025) confirms the plan explicitly acknowledges AI can provide 'step-by-step guidance on designing lethal pathogens, sourcing materials, and optimizing methods of dispersal' but does not replace the DURC/PEPP institutional review framework. This is the authoritative biosecurity source documenting that the governance vacuum persists even after the AI Action Plan's release, and that the plan's authors made a deliberate choice to acknowledge the risk without restoring institutional oversight mechanisms.


## Extending Evidence

**Source:** RAND Corporation, August 2025

RAND analysis confirms the specific governance gap: AI Action Plan addresses AI-bio convergence risk at the synthesis/screening layer (nucleic acid synthesis screening requirements, OSTP data sharing mechanism, CAISI evaluation) but leaves the institutional oversight layer ungoverned. None of these instruments replace DURC/PEPP institutional review committee structure. RAND describes this as 'institutions left without clear direction on which experiments require oversight reviews,' confirming the category substitution between output screening and input oversight.


## Supporting Evidence

**Source:** RAND Corporation, August 2025

RAND's August 2025 analysis (one month before the September 2025 missed deadline) describes the governance gap as 'institutions left without clear direction on which experiments require oversight reviews.' This contemporaneous assessment from a primary policy research organization confirms that the gap was visible to expert observers before the deadline was missed, strengthening the claim that the vacuum was created through policy failure rather than unforeseen circumstances.
