EU vs. US AI Governance Approaches
Overview
Two distinct philosophies for governing AI have emerged on either side of the Atlantic, each with different implications for how ethical principles get translated into practice.
The EU Approach
Regulatory-first. The EU AI Act establishes legally binding requirements organized by risk categories. High-risk AI systems face mandatory conformity assessments, documentation requirements, and human oversight mechanisms.
Key characteristics:
- Prescriptive: Specific technical requirements codified in law
- Ex-ante: Compliance required before deployment
- Rights-based: Grounded in fundamental rights framework
- Enforceable: Fines up to 7% of global revenue for violations
The EU High-Level Expert Group’s seven requirements (human agency, robustness, privacy, transparency, fairness, wellbeing, accountability) serve as the conceptual foundation.
The US Approach
Sector-specific and principles-based. Rather than comprehensive legislation, the US relies on executive orders, agency guidance, and voluntary frameworks tailored to specific industries.
Key characteristics:
- Flexible: Guidelines adapt to sector needs
- Ex-post: Focus on addressing harms after they occur
- Innovation-oriented: Avoiding constraints that might slow development
- Fragmented: Different rules for finance, healthcare, employment, etc.
The 2023 Executive Order on AI emphasized safety testing for frontier models but left implementation details to agencies.
Key Differences
| Dimension | EU | US |
|---|---|---|
| Binding force | Legal requirements | Mostly voluntary |
| Scope | Economy-wide | Sector-specific |
| Timing | Pre-market | Post-harm |
| Enforcement | Centralized | Distributed |
| Philosophy | Precautionary | Innovation-permissive |
When Each Applies
The EU approach works better for:
- High-stakes applications with clear harm pathways
- Contexts where consistency matters more than flexibility
- Organizations needing regulatory certainty
The US approach works better for:
- Rapidly evolving technologies where rules age quickly
- Applications where harms are speculative or novel
- Organizations willing to self-regulate
The Convergence
Despite different starting points, both approaches are moving toward similar operational themes: human oversight, transparency, fairness, and accountability. The difference is primarily in enforcement mechanisms rather than underlying values.
Related: 05-atom—voluntary-compliance-gap, 07-molecule—principles-to-practice-translation-problem