Europe and the United Kingdom are fine-tuning their approach to AI model testing as a deadline looms for the U.S. government to set rules of the road.

Why it matters: U.S. allies for years have been grappling with the same AI safety questions the Trump administration now faces.

• Wherever the U.S. lands in its AI framework, architects of the EU and U.K. approaches say it would be just the start.

The big picture: President Trump began his second term by scrapping his predecessor's AI strategy and pursuing an anti-regulatory regime.

• But as AI models rapidly grew more powerful, the Trump administration has found itself developing an oversight framework and deciding exactly what should be covered.
• Under Trump's executive order, the administration is due to release its voluntary AI framework by Aug. 1.
• The Trump administration is weighing a unified pitch from OpenAI and Anthropic to create "an equal playing field" where highly capable models are all covered, regardless of whether they're open- or closed-source, according to one source familiar with the discussions.

The EU, meanwhile, has treated AI safety as a sustained technical and policy project for several years.

• It's a fluid approach to cybersecurity use cases where previous events inform future rules.

Zoom in: One lesson from Europe is to start with specific threat scenarios.

• Researchers begin with historical data on threats such as biological weapons, then measure how much AI increases a bad actor's capabilities and whether that creates a systemic risk to society, CEO and co-founder of AI evaluation firm EquiStamp Chris Canal told Axios.
• Other key lessons from the EU process include tying benchmarking — testing AI models against standardized evaluations to measure their capabilities and risks — to specific scenarios, such as bioweapons or government database hacks.
• The EU also emphasizes multiple, independent verifications rather than relying solely on companies' own assessments.
• Canal worked with the EU and U.K. governments to shape their approaches to AI regulation.

Zoom out: The EU commits to getting buy-in from the scientific community, grounding AI risk thresholds in peer-reviewed science before embedding them into policy and pushing researchers to publish their methodologies.

• By comparison, the U.S. relies mainly on internal or industry-driven standards.
• Technical experts are also flocking to the private sector, particularly in the U.S. and U.K.

What they're saying: "There have been several times where we're working with someone on the [U.K.] government side, and they suddenly put in their two weeks' notice, maybe less, and then they have a great position at OpenAI," Canal said.

The bottom line: Governments are starting to coalesce around cyber risks, but the U.S. and its allies are only beginning to map AI's broader challenges.

Data center backlash has largely centered on higher electricity bills, but Democratic political strategists are setting their sights on a fresh opportunity to energize voters around a new issue: pollution.

Why it matters: AI and the rapid buildout of the infrastructure that powers it are poised to mobilize voters if candidates can get the messaging right.

Driving the news: Climate Power, a communications firm focused on the politics of climate, is actively advising candidates to speak on pollution tied to data centers and the importance of clean energy.

• The independent organization was founded by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Sierra Club.
• Climate Power is advising campaigns that clean-powered data centers appeal to an unlikely coalition of liberals, college-educated women, voters of color and younger men — unlike fossil fuel-powered projects.

Zoom in: The organization is also leveraging the data center issue with a population Democrats are fighting to win back: Latinos.

• In a poll released this week by the firm, 64% of Latinos said keeping costs down and limiting pollution are equally important when considering how to meet data centers' energy demand.

Between the lines: Some political operatives view data centers as ripe for voter mobilization and are starting to zero in on how to message around the issue ahead of the midterms as well as the 2028 presidential election.

• Climate Power has been aggressively pushing out data and findings on voters' views of AI and data centers to campaigns increasingly looking to sharpen their message on energy affordability, spokesperson Marcus Robinson told Maria.

The intrigue: The gap between centrists and progressives on the idea of data center moratoriums may be narrowing.

• New York Gov. Kathy Hochul's data center moratorium drew praise from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who is behind a national data center moratorium bill that would go further and pause new projects nationwide.

The bottom line: Democrats are singing the same tune when it comes to data centers not raising utility bills, not polluting and giving communities a say in their construction.

• But when it comes to messaging those goals effectively, the party is still figuring it out.

A federal judge yesterday signaled she's become even more skeptical of the Pentagon's decision to blacklist Anthropic as she heard arguments over the AI company's legal challenge to its designation as a supply-chain risk.

Why it matters: The upcoming decision will mark the next chapter in what's expected to be a lengthy legal battle between the government and an AI company that's simultaneously helping shape the government's AI safety rules.

Driving the news: "I don't see additional evidence from the government really justifying what it did. If anything, it seems like the record, in some ways, has gotten worse for the government," U.S. District Judge Rita Lin said within the first five minutes of opening the hearing.

• "I don't see evidence that Anthropic could alter the model after it was delivered or flip some kind of kill switch," she added.
• Both Anthropic and the Pentagon have asked the judge to grant summary judgment in their favor.

Catch up quick: The dispute began early this year after Anthropic and the Pentagon clashed over the military's use of the company's AI models.

• The Defense Department sought to use Claude for "all lawful purposes," even in the most sensitive military and intelligence applications.
• Anthropic insisted that two areas remain off-limits: mass surveillance of Americans and fully autonomous weapons.
• The standoff escalated when the Pentagon designated Anthropic a national security and supply-chain risk earlier this year, leading the AI lab to sue.

At a March hearing, Lin called the administration's treatment of the company "troubling" and said it appeared to be "an attempt to cripple Anthropic."

• Lin later temporarily blocked the Defense Department's ban, finding that Anthropic had shown a likelihood of success on the merits and would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction.

What's next: Lin is not expected to rule from the bench, and there is no deadline for her decision. She typically issues written decisions after hearings.

• The losing party is expected to appeal.