The EU AI Act Newsletter #81: Pause the AI Act?

European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier explicitly stated there would be "no stop the clock", "no grace period", and "no pause".

Welcome to the EU AI Act Newsletter, a brief biweekly newsletter by the Future of Life Institute providing you with up-to-date developments and analyses of the EU artificial intelligence law.

Legislative Process

EU maintains AI Act timeline despite pressure: According to Foo Yun Chee from Reuters, the European Commission has rejected calls from some companies and countries to delay implementation of the AI Act, maintaining the legislation's original schedule. Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier explicitly stated there would be "no stop the clock", "no grace period", and "no pause" in response to recent requests from companies including Google's Alphabet, Meta, and European firms like Mistral and ASML seeking years-long delays. The regulatory timeline remains unchanged: provisions began in February, general-purpose AI model obligations commence in August, and high-risk AI requirements take effect in August 2026. The Commission acknowledged industry concerns by planning to propose simplification measures for digital rules later this year, particularly reducing reporting obligations for smaller companies.

EU refuses to negotiate tech rules in Trump trade talks: Based on POLITICO'S Pieter Haeck's reporting, European Commission tech chief Henna Virkkunen has firmly declared that the EU's major technology regulations – the Digital Services Act, Digital Markets Act, and AI Act – are non-negotiable in trade discussions with the United States. Virkkunen emphasised these rules are "based on our European values" and essential for ensuring "trustworthy technologies", stating they are "not part of trade negotiations from our side." The Trump administration and US tech executives have strongly opposed these regulations, arguing that the Digital Services Act would enable American censorship and that the Digital Markets Act unfairly targets US companies. Washington has also proposed a pause to the AI Act, which is gaining support from some European government officials and tech executives. Virkkunen rejected framing EU tech fines as tariffs, clarifying that the Commission is not looking for fines but uses penalties to enforce compliance.

Swedish PM calls for AI Act pause: Pieter Haeck also reported that Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson has become the first government leader to publicly call for delaying the AI Act, criticising the rules as "confusing" during a meeting with parliament lawmakers. Officials from Czech Republic and Poland have previously shown openness to delays. Kristersson argued that the Act should not proceed without there being common standards, warning that continued implementation could cause Europe to fall behind technologically or result in specific applications becoming unavailable on the European market. The AI Act, which became law last year, is being gradually implemented over the next year and a half, relying on technical standards for compliance regarding aspects such as cybersecurity and human oversight. Swedish conservative MEP Arba Kokalari supported Kristersson's position and also advocated for including the AI Act in the Commission's expected digital simplification package.

Analyses

Europe's top CEOs ask EU to pause AI Act: Eliza Gkritsi from POLITICO shared that a group of 46 leaders from Europe's largest companies have urged Brussels to implement a two-year "clock-stop" on the AI Act in an open letter. The signatories include CEOs from major firms across various industries such as Airbus, TotalEnergies, Lufthansa, ASML, and Mistral. The landmark regulation has faced intense lobbying pressure from American tech giants and is under scrutiny as EU officials work to reduce red tape and boost the economy. European Commission tech chief Henna Virkkunen indicated she would decide on a potential pause by the end of August if implementation standards are not ready. The executives are calling for a pause before key obligations take effect, arguing that "unclear, overlapping and increasingly complex EU regulations" are disrupting their ability to conduct business in Europe. They suggest that a pause would demonstrate the EU's commitment to simplification and competitiveness for innovators and investors. The requested delay is for both general-purpose AI provisions taking effect on 2nd August and high-risk systems regulations due in August 2026.

US pressure complicates EU AI regulation efforts: MEP Michael McNamara, co-chair of the European Parliament’s working group on the Implementation and Enforcement of the AI Act, described in The Irish Times that the US Vice-President JD Vance's recent European visit highlighted American opposition to the EU's AI Act, arguing that excessive regulation could kill a transformative industry. The Act centres on a voluntary code of practice for general-purpose AI models, developed by independent experts using industry and other stakeholder submissions. However, finalising this code has become increasingly contentious due to US pressure and growing nervousness within EU capitals. Poland's recent call for a "stop-the-clock" pause on parts of the AI Act reflects member state concerns about moving too far, too fast and potentially triggering trade disputes. Meanwhile, Europe's creative sectors feel increasingly abandoned as their work is used to train AI systems without consent, credit, or compensation. With legislative intervention unlikely, courts will have to determine whether AI companies can train models on copyrighted works without permission, and what rules for transparency, licensing, or opt-outs will protect creators' rights.

Why the EU must stay the course on AI regulation: Kai Zenner, Head of Office and Digital Policy Adviser for MEP Axel Voss, and Sebastian Hallensleben, Chief Trust Officer at Resaro, published an op-ed in IAPP, arguing that consideration of a pause on the AI Act represents a loss of nerve at the very moment Europe needs genuine leadership. While acknowledging implementation difficulties, such as member states rushing to staff national authorities, the AI Office remaining under construction, and harmonised standards requiring significant work, Zenner and Hallensleben state that these challenges do not justify abandoning EU AI plans. Instead, they advocate for a coherent values-based digital strategy across the entire technology stack, viewing the AI Act as important to this vision. The authors distinguish between necessary simplification, clarification and even some recalibration versus deregulation, warning that submitting to geopolitical pressure would be a self-inflicted wound. They suggest three bold steps: 1) unify SME support efforts, 2) rethink decentralised enforcement in the Act, and 3) implement a comprehensive “Digital Industrial Strategy” focusing on sovereign digital infrastructure.