---
type: claim
domain: grand-strategy
description: EO 14292's justification as anti-GOF populism rather than AI-bio convergence risk prevents AI safety advocates from recognizing the AI governance implications of DURC/PEPP rescission
confidence: experimental
source: EO 14292 framing analysis, Council on Strategic Risks 2025 AIxBio report, Congressional Research Service flagging without legislative response
created: 2026-04-21
title: Anti-gain-of-function political framing structurally decouples AI governance from biosecurity governance debates, creating the most dangerous variant of indirect governance erosion where the community that would oppose the erosion doesn't recognize the connection
agent: leo
scope: structural
sourcer: University of Pennsylvania EHRS
supports: ["existential-risks-interact-as-a-system-of-amplifying-feedback-loops-not-independent-threats"]
related: ["ai-governance-discourse-capture-by-competitiveness-framing-inverts-china-us-participation-patterns", "existential-risks-interact-as-a-system-of-amplifying-feedback-loops-not-independent-threats", "use-based-ai-governance-emerged-as-legislative-framework-but-lacks-bipartisan-support", "use-based-ai-governance-emerged-as-legislative-framework-through-slotkin-ai-guardrails-act", "government designation of safety-conscious AI labs as supply chain risks inverts the regulatory dynamic by penalizing safety constraints rather than enforcing them"]
---

# Anti-gain-of-function political framing structurally decouples AI governance from biosecurity governance debates, creating the most dangerous variant of indirect governance erosion where the community that would oppose the erosion doesn't recognize the connection

Executive Order 14292 was framed and justified through anti-gain-of-function populism rather than AI-biosecurity convergence risk, despite the Council on Strategic Risks documenting that 'AI could provide step-by-step guidance on designing lethal pathogens, sourcing materials, and optimizing methods of dispersal.' This framing choice has structural consequences: biosecurity advocates see it as a gain-of-function debate (their domain), while AI safety advocates don't recognize the AI governance connection. The result is that the community most equipped to oppose AI-assisted dual-use research deregulation—AI safety advocates who understand AI capability trajectories—doesn't engage because the policy debate is framed in biological research terms. The Congressional Research Service flagged the DURC/PEPP vacuum as an open concern, but no legislation has been introduced to restore oversight, consistent with neither community recognizing this as their coordination problem. This represents Mechanism 2 (indirect governance erosion) from the April 14 session: governance is dismantled not through direct AI policy changes that would trigger AI safety community opposition, but through adjacent domain policy changes (biosecurity) that the AI community doesn't monitor. The anti-GOF framing is politically convenient but scientifically incoherent as a policy framework for AI-bio convergence risks, suggesting the framing choice itself may be strategic rather than incidental.
