Originally published July 29, 2025 · Updated October 17, 2026
Updated October 17, 2026: Revised policy references and practical priorities for adopting AI in air cargo. Sources and revision details appear below.
Policy Direction Meets Operational Responsibility
For a freight forwarder, the value of artificial intelligence is measured in a shipment that moves correctly, a document checked before tender, or an exception caught before a customer misses a deadline. Federal policy matters because it shapes the environment in which those tools are developed, purchased, and deployed.
The Trump administration has emphasized AI adoption, infrastructure development, and American technology leadership. For air cargo leaders, the challenge is to translate that direction into reliable operating decisions. A policy announcement does not establish that a particular platform is secure, a shipment is authorized, or a facility is ready to support a new system.
What Air Cargo Leaders Should Do Now
- Define the use: Identify the task, its operational risk, and who can approve or override the output.
- Verify the requirements: Separate federal procurement policy from the rules, contracts, and security obligations governing the business.
- Test before scaling: Measure accuracy, exceptions, recovery procedures, and service performance using representative shipment scenarios.
Policy Guide for Air Cargo Leaders
The distinctions below help identify what needs review. Follow the linked sources in the article for the underlying requirements.
| Area / measure | Scope | What forwarders should do |
|---|---|---|
| Federal AI purchasing EO 14319; OMB M-26-04 and M-25-22 | Federal procurement and agency implementation | Check the solicitation and contract when supplying AI products or services to government. |
| Federal software security OMB M-26-05, January 2026 | Agency security assurance based on risk and mission | Confirm customer and contract requirements; continue vendor and data-security checks. |
| National and state AI policy EO 14365; DOJ task force; March 2026 legislative framework | Executive action and legislative recommendations | Distinguish proposals and challenges from effective law and court rulings. |
| Data-center infrastructure EO 14318 | Qualifying projects and federal implementation | Verify project eligibility, approvals, power, connectivity, and continuity. |
| Technology shipments BIS Export Administration Regulations and guidance | Controls depend on the item and transaction | Confirm classification, parties, destination, end use, and authorization. |
| AI risk and cargo security NIST AI RMF; 49 CFR Part 1548 | Voluntary framework alongside applicable security obligations | Use risk controls without treating AI adoption as a waiver of cargo-security requirements. |
AI Adoption Requires Evidence
The July 2025 America’s AI Action Plan organized the administration’s agenda around innovation, infrastructure, and international diplomacy and security. It is a policy agenda; operators still need to examine the specific rules and implementation measures relevant to their activities.
In March 2026, the White House released a national AI legislative framework and called on Congress to act. That announcement described proposed legislative objectives. An administration framework should not be read as an enacted statute or proof that state requirements no longer apply.
For forwarders evaluating document extraction, routing recommendations, or customer communications, the procurement question is practical: can the tool perform the defined task, show its limitations, and fit the operation’s control process? Ask vendors for test results, data-retention terms, access controls, change notifications, and a workable exit plan.
Federal and State Requirements Need Separate Review
Executive Order 14365, issued December 11, 2025, directed federal action concerning state AI laws and preparation of legislative recommendations. The Justice Department established its AI Litigation Task Force on January 9, 2026. The March 2026 legislative framework followed that initiative.
A direction to challenge a law, a filed case, and an effective court ruling are different events. Forwarders operating across states should verify the requirements applicable to their particular use and any relevant court orders before changing a compliance process. Federal policy preferences alone are not a sufficient basis to disregard a state requirement.
Export Promotion Does Not Remove Export Controls
Support for American AI technology abroad should not be interpreted as blanket permission to move advanced chips, servers, software, or technology. BIS continues to administer the Export Administration Regulations and publish guidance on advanced computing items, including guidance issued in May 2026. Its compliance resources address classification, licensing, end users, end uses, and reexports.
Two decisions deserve separate review: purchasing an AI-enabled logistics service and arranging transport of controlled technology. Using a platform does not authorize the goods it helps route. Where controlled cargo is involved, confirm classification, destination, parties, end use, and any required authorization before release.
AI can assist with gathering information or flagging inconsistencies. The operation should assign responsibility for resolving those flags and documenting the decision; an automated recommendation should not be treated as the license or legal determination itself.
Infrastructure Policy Is Not a Site Approval
Executive Order 14318, issued July 23, 2025, addresses qualifying data-center and supporting infrastructure projects. It directs federal actions to facilitate development and requires implementation consistent with applicable law. It is not a general permit for AI installations at airports, ports, or warehouses.
For an air cargo facility, the operational review remains specific to the project: power availability, network connectivity, local approvals, equipment integration, cybersecurity, and continuity during outages. A nearby data center alone does not guarantee lower latency or a more reliable cargo system. Those benefits should be demonstrated in the proposed service and deployment plan.
Federal Procurement Rules Have a Defined Scope
Executive Order 14319, also issued July 23, 2025, establishes principles for federal procurement of large language models and directs implementation through agency guidance and contracts. Its central focus is federal purchasing, not a general prohibition on commercial environmental or sustainability reporting software.
Forwarders should ask what requirements actually apply to the product and contract under consideration. An assertion that a vendor has removed reporting capabilities needs to be checked against its documentation. Organizations serving international customers should separately confirm the data and reporting functions those relationships require.
OMB issued Memorandum M-26-04 on December 11, 2025 to implement the order. It complements the federal AI acquisition guidance in M-25-22. For a forwarder, the practical step is to identify whether the company is supplying an AI product or service under a federal contract, and then examine the actual solicitation and contract terms. A commercial cargo platform is not automatically governed by every federal AI procurement requirement.
In January 2026, OMB M-26-05 rescinded two earlier federal software-security memoranda and directed agencies to use security assurance matched to risk and mission needs. This change does not establish that a particular vendor is secure or remove the need to assess access, data handling, and recovery arrangements.
Train Staff to Handle Exceptions
The administration’s March 2026 framework includes workforce development among its objectives. For an individual forwarder, a policy objective is not evidence that a particular grant is open, funded, or available to its workforce.
Training should begin with the tasks employees actually perform. Staff need to recognize incomplete source data, incorrect document extraction, conflicting shipment instructions, and outputs that require escalation. Define who reviews a recommendation, when a person must intervene, and how the team continues operating if the system is unavailable.
A useful pilot measures correction rates and rework alongside processing speed. Time saved on routine entries has limited value if an undetected error creates a clearance delay, a missed flight, or a security exception.
Security and Accountability Remain Operational Priorities
U.S. indirect air carriers operate under 49 CFR Part 1548, including requirements for security programs, cargo acceptance, and training. AI adoption should be assessed within those obligations and any other applicable requirements. The AI policy agenda should not be treated as a waiver of cargo-security procedures.
The NIST AI Risk Management Framework remains available as a voluntary resource for organizations designing, developing, deploying, or using AI. Its governance approach offers a useful basis for assigning responsibility, understanding the use case, measuring risks, and managing performance. It does not replace a required security program or certify a particular product.
For cargo operations, practical controls include restricted access to shipment data, approved uses for customer documents, review of consequential outputs, incident escalation, and a tested fallback process. These are management recommendations for reliable deployment, not a claim that every AI tool is subject to an identical federal approval process.
Protect Service Reliability as Technology Changes
Forwarders do not need to wait for every AI policy question to be settled before testing a useful application. They do need a clear record of what the system does, where it can fail, and who remains accountable for the shipment decision.
The strongest adoption plans connect technology choices to fewer errors, better exception handling, and dependable service. Policy awareness helps leaders recognize opportunities. Operational discipline determines whether those opportunities produce results.
If your organization is assessing how federal and state policy developments affect its technology and operating strategy, contact Diakon Partners.
Sources and Revision Note
This October 17, 2026 revision corrects the executive-order references, distinguishes policy proposals and federal procurement requirements from private-sector obligations, removes unsupported claims about changes to commercial reporting tools and a named workforce grant, and replaces broad export-control assumptions with a shipment-specific review approach. Two illustrations are retained for context; they do not document individual deployments. The policy review also covers EO 14365, the Justice Department’s January 2026 task-force memorandum, and OMB M-26-04 and M-26-05.
Primary sources are linked in the relevant sections: the White House AI Action Plan and March 2026 legislative framework; Executive Orders 14318 and 14319; BIS export-compliance resources; NIST’s AI Risk Management Framework; and the public indirect-air-carrier regulations in 49 CFR Part 1548.