The America—Israel AI Cooperation Act requires the Secretary of Commerce to modify the interim rule titled ‘‘Framework for Artificial Intelligence Diffusion’’ (90 Fed. Reg. 4544) so that Israel appears in the list of countries in the amendment to Supplement No. 5 to part 740 of Title 15, Code of Federal Regulations.
The bill further instructs Commerce to make exports to Israel of items controlled by that interim rule subject to the same requirements and exceptions that apply to the other countries listed in that supplement.
This is a narrow, directive change to a specific Commerce export rule rather than an amendment to statutory export control authorities. For exporters and compliance teams, the immediate practical effect would be parity in treatment between Israel and the other countries named in that supplement for the subset of items covered by the interim AI diffusion rule—likely easing licensing friction for certain advanced integrated circuits shipped to Israel, while leaving implementation details to the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS).
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs the Secretary of Commerce to amend the AI-focused interim export rule so that Israel is included in the country list added to Supplement No. 5 to part 740 of 15 CFR, and requires that exports to Israel of items controlled under that rule follow the same requirements and exceptions as exports to the other listed countries.
Who It Affects
U.S. manufacturers and exporters of advanced integrated circuits (semiconductor companies and their distributors), BIS compliance teams, and Israeli entities that import AI‑relevant chips and hardware are the primary stakeholders. BIS and other export-control practitioners will handle the regulatory change and its enforcement.
Why It Matters
The change would operationally expand license-exception parity to Israel for chips and related items covered by the interim AI rule, altering market access and compliance calculations without rewriting export-control statutes. That affects supply chains for AI systems and shifts the enforcement posture for these items toward the framework Commerce implements.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill targets a single regulatory vehicle: the Commerce Department’s interim rule known as the ‘‘Framework for Artificial Intelligence Diffusion.’’ That interim rule amended Supplement No. 5 to part 740 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR) to set out which countries receive particular treatment — typically through license exceptions or streamlined licensing — for a class of items the rule controls, notably advanced integrated circuits tied to artificial intelligence diffusion. HB3303 tells the Secretary of Commerce to revise the interim rule so Israel is treated the same as the other countries listed in that supplement.
Legally, the bill uses a directive form: it begins with a ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of law’’ clause and then obliges the Secretary, acting through the Undersecretary for Industry and Security, to include Israel and to align the requirements and exceptions that apply to exports destined for Israel with those that apply to other listed countries. The statute does not specify technical parameters such as performance thresholds, product lists, end‑use controls, or timelines; it simply instructs Commerce to make the regulatory change when finalizing the referenced interim rule.Practically, exporters should read this as a mandate to BIS to deliver parity in administrative treatment for the narrow category of items controlled by that interim rule.
If implemented as written, certain shipments of advanced integrated circuits to Israel would move under the same regulatory regime—exceptions, licensing conditions, or reporting requirements—that BIS set for the other countries in Supplement No. 5. The bill leaves intact any other export controls or sanctions that apply outside the scope of the referenced interim rule and does not create new criminal or civil penalties or funding for implementation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires the Secretary of Commerce to include Israel in the country list added to Supplement No. 5 to part 740 by the interim rule ‘‘Framework for Artificial Intelligence Diffusion’’ (90 Fed. Reg. 4544).
It obliges Commerce to ensure exports to Israel of items controlled under that interim rule are subject to the same requirements and exceptions as exports to the other countries in that supplement.
The directive is framed ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of law,’’ forcing the regulatory change rather than merely asking BIS to consider it.
The statute addresses only items controlled pursuant to that specific interim rule; it does not amend broader export‑control statutes or add new categories of controlled items.
The bill does not set technical thresholds, end‑use restrictions, implementation deadlines, or provide funding—those details are left to Commerce during rule finalization.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s name: the ‘‘America—Israel AI Cooperation Act.’
Directive to Commerce on the AI diffusion interim rule
Commands the Secretary of Commerce, through the Undersecretary for Industry and Security, to modify the interim rule titled ‘‘Framework for Artificial Intelligence Diffusion’’ (90 Fed. Reg. 4544) when finalizing that rule. The instruction is procedural: it tells BIS how to change the regulatory text of the interim rule rather than creating a new standalone regulatory regime.
Include Israel and require parity of treatment
Subparagraph (1) requires adding Israel to the list of countries in the amendment to Supplement No. 5 to part 740, and subparagraph (2) requires that exports to Israel of items controlled under that interim rule be subject to the same requirements and exceptions as exports to the other listed countries. This is the operative change: it aligns Israel’s regulatory treatment with the supplement’s existing cohort for the specific items controlled by the AI rule.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Technology across all five countries.
Explore Technology in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Israeli AI researchers and companies — they gain potentially easier access to certain advanced integrated circuits and related hardware covered by the interim AI rule if Commerce implements parity in exceptions and licensing.
- U.S. semiconductor manufacturers and exporters — parity reduces licensing friction and market-entry costs for shipments to Israel for the specific list of items controlled by the interim rule.
- U.S.-based AI developers and integrators working with Israeli partners — supply‑chain predictability for AI-capable chips may improve collaboration and procurement timelines.
Who Bears the Cost
- Bureau of Industry and Security (Commerce) — tasked with making the regulatory amendment and handling any increased administrative or compliance oversight to ensure end‑use and end‑user requirements are met.
- U.S. national security and foreign policy agencies — the shift toward parity narrows BIS’s discretionary control over these exports, potentially increasing the burden on intelligence and export-control agencies to monitor misuse.
- Export compliance teams and downstream distributors — while some licensing friction may reduce, firms must update procedures, compliance programs, and screening logic to reflect the changed treatment for Israel and to ensure continued adherence to any remaining end‑use/end‑user constraints.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill forces a trade‑off between accelerating AI cooperation and market access for a close partner (by mandating regulatory parity) and preserving export‑control flexibility designed to mitigate national‑security and proliferation risks; it resolves that tension in favor of access while leaving unanswered questions about technical scope, enforcement, and interagency coordination.
The bill is narrowly framed but raises several operational and legal questions. First, it directs a regulatory outcome without specifying the technical contours that determine which integrated circuits fall under the interim rule.
That leaves exporters uncertain until BIS finalizes the rule with the mandated inclusion. Second, the ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of law’’ language is strong: it signals congressional intent to compel BIS to act, but it does not repeal or alter other statutes or sanctions that may independently restrict certain transfers; reconciling these layers will be an implementation task for Commerce and interagency partners.
Third, the bill requires parity of ‘‘requirements and exceptions’’ but does not define whether that parity includes any special end‑use checks, reporting obligations, or post‑shipment verifications that could remain in force; ambiguity here creates short‑term compliance risk for companies that must interpret which controls persist.
Finally, the change focuses on administrative access rather than export-control policy fundamentals. It removes a regulatory barrier for a specific partner for a defined class of items, but it does not address oversight resources, enforcement mechanics, or potential downstream diversion risks.
Those are practical gaps that BIS, in consultation with other agencies, will need to fill when it implements the mandated modification.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.