AI regulations are rapidly emerging worldwide as governments and regulators respond to the growing use of artificial intelligence across business operations. Organizations leveraging AI for productivity, automation, and decision-making will soon be expected to meet clear governance, risk, and accountability requirements.
While individual AI regulations differ by region, most share common themes, such as transparency, risk management, human oversight, and documented controls. ISO/IEC 42001, the international standard for AI management systems, is designed around these same principles, making it a practical foundation for regulatory alignment.
Is your organization prepared to navigate the evolving regulations and governance expectations surrounding AI?
An ISO 42001,aligned approach helps organizations structure AI risk management, strengthen oversight, and demonstrate regulatory readiness as global AI regulations continue to take shape.
ISO 42001 for Broad AI Compliance Coverage
Artificial intelligence (AI) has rapidly become embedded across nearly every sector of the global economy. When deployed effectively, AI delivers significant gains in efficiency, scalability, and analytical capability. At the same time, these benefits introduce new risks related to governance, accountability, transparency, and oversight, prompting lawmakers worldwide to accelerate the development of AI regulations.
As AI regulations continue to evolve, organizations must prepare for a compliance landscape that extends well beyond a single jurisdiction or rule set. Looking ahead to 2026 and beyond, flexibility and structured governance will be critical for adapting to new and emerging regulatory requirements.
ISO/IEC 42001 plays a central role in this shift. The standard reflects many of the core principles shaping global AI regulations, including risk-based controls, defined responsibilities, lifecycle oversight, and continuous improvement. Because of this alignment, implementing ISO 42001 offers organizations a proactive way to prepare for regulatory expectations before they are formally enforced.
In the sections below, we’ll explore how ISO 42001 aligns with emerging AI regulations by covering:
- Key context on what ISO 42001 is and the governance priorities it establishes
- An overview of the primary themes shaping U.S.-based AI regulation
- How international AI regulatory frameworks map to ISO 42001’s global scope
By working with an experienced ISO 42001 advisory partner, organizations can address many of the shared governance and risk management expectations found across today’s emerging AI regulations, while building a scalable foundation for future compliance.
Objectives and Priorities in ISO 42001
ISO/IEC 42001:2023, co-published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), provides organizations with a framework to manage AI responsibly and effectively. While it is not legally mandatory, ISO 42001 is widely regarded as a benchmark, especially in Europe, and its principles are influencing emerging AI regulations worldwide.
At its core, ISO 42001 emphasizes establishing and maintaining an AI Management System (AIMS). This top-down governance approach ensures formal accountability for all risks and potential impacts associated with AI systems and their operators.
Beyond this central focus, ISO 42001 organizes its objectives and priorities across several key domains:
- Context – Maintain a dynamic understanding of the environments in which AI systems operate, justifying their design and outcomes.
- Leadership – Secure organizational buy-in, starting with executive leaders, and ensure all staff understand their AI-related roles and responsibilities.
- Planning – Anticipate both positive and negative AI impacts, implementing contingencies to maximize benefits while minimizing risks.
- Support – Allocate adequate resources, including human, technical, and communication infrastructure, to manage AI systems effectively.
- Operation – Manage AI operations securely, with structured risk planning, impact assessments, and mitigation strategies.
- Evaluation – Conduct regular internal audits and, when appropriate, independent external validations to confirm system effectiveness and compliance readiness.
- Improvement – Commit to continuous enhancement of the AIMS by identifying, addressing, and preventing nonconformities over time.
These high-level priorities reflect a defining characteristic of ISO frameworks: flexible implementation. Rather than prescribing rigid controls, ISO 42001 allows organizations to tailor solutions to their specific operations, making it a practical foundation for navigating current and future AI regulations.
By starting with ISO 42001, organizations gain a structured yet adaptable approach to AI governance, positioning themselves ahead of evolving regulatory requirements and demonstrating proactive compliance readiness.
Themes in US-Based AI Regulations
North America represents the largest AI market globally, with the United States driving substantial investment and adoption. Similar to ISO 42001, which is not yet legally mandated, there is currently no comprehensive federal AI regulation in the U.S. However, several frameworks and legislative initiatives, both existing and in development, signal the direction of future requirements.
At the federal level, one key AI framework has already been published and is strongly recommended for government contractors and their strategic partners. While voluntary today, adherence can demonstrate proactive compliance and readiness for potential future mandates.
At the state level, numerous local governments have proposed or enacted AI legislation that could soon impose binding requirements. Organizations operating within these jurisdictions must stay aware of evolving rules to manage operational and reputational risk effectively.
In the sections below, we provide a closer look at federal and state AI regulatory themes, highlighting the aspects most relevant to organizations preparing for compliance.
US Federal AI Regulation: NIST AI RMF
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has published the AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF) to guide organizations in identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks associated with AI systems. While the AI RMF is not legally mandated, many federal agencies and their contractors are strongly encouraged to adopt its guidelines. Several of its core protections align closely with the governance principles emphasized in ISO 42001.
The NIST AI RMF organizes its approach around four core functions:
- Govern : Establish formal policies and procedures that clearly define roles and responsibilities for AI risk management across the organization.
- Map : Maintain accurate, up-to-date information about all systems, data, and infrastructure that AI tools interact with or impact.
- Measure : Monitor and document AI system performance, including safety, explain ability, and operational outcomes, adjusting as needed.
- Manage : Implement mitigation strategies and contingency plans to ensure AI operations remain secure, trustworthy, and adaptable over time.
These functions closely mirror ISO 42001’s Context and Planning themes, emphasizing structured organizational information, risk modeling, and proactive oversight.
By adopting a coordinated approach between ISO 42001 and the NIST AI RMF, organizations can reduce redundant efforts, streamline compliance, and build a robust foundation for meeting emerging AI regulations in the U.S
US Local AI Regulations and Laws
State-level AI regulations in the United States are becoming increasingly detailed, reflecting diverse priorities across privacy, fairness, and transparency. A 2025 Brookings analysis of proposed and enacted bills highlights several recurring themes in local AI legislation:
- Nonconsensual intimate imagery (NCII) : 53 bills were proposed addressing NCII, including child sexual abuse material (CSAM). These laws focus on prohibiting nonconsensual content and protecting individual privacy rights.
- Election integrity and security : 33 bills were introduced, requiring political campaigns to disclose AI-driven communications or promotional tools.
- Generative AI transparency : 32 bills were proposed, with two signed into law, mandating clear disclosure when AI systems, such as chatbots, interact with the public.
- High-risk AI applications : 29 bills addressed automated decision-making technologies (ADMT), aiming to prevent algorithmic discrimination and protect citizens from unintended consequences.
- Secure government use of AI : 22 bills were proposed, with four enacted, establishing accountability standards for agencies and their private partners.
- Fair employment practices : 13 bills were introduced, six enacted, focusing on ethical AI usage in hiring and workplace monitoring.
- Health and insurance ethics : 12 bills were proposed, with two enacted, regulating AI in medical treatment and insurance decisions, balancing transparency with safety.
While these local AI regulations are more granular than ISO 42001, they share common values: transparency, accountability, and structured governance. By aligning organizational AI management with ISO 42001, companies can proactively meet these emerging state-level expectations and demonstrate commitment to responsible AI practices.
Themes in International AI Regulations
Organizations operating internationally must navigate a complex landscape of AI regulations that often apply based on where affected individuals or entities reside, rather than where a company is headquartered. This makes understanding global regulatory expectations critical for compliance, risk management, and reputation.
ISO is a globally recognized standard-setting organization, and ISO 42001 is designed to be applicable across diverse business contexts. Many international AI laws and emerging regulations either reference ISO 42001 principles directly or align closely with its governance priorities, such as risk management, transparency, and accountability.
Below, we examine how AI regulations in key regions, particularly Europe and Asia, compare with ISO 42001, highlighting common themes and actionable insights for organizations seeking global compliance readiness.
The EU AI Act and ISO 42001
The European Union represents a significant share of the global AI market, accounting for 23.2% in 2024, and continues to grow alongside the U.S. and other regions. The EU is also preparing one of the most ambitious AI regulations to date: the EU AI Act, which is expected to have an impact on AI similar to how the GDPR transformed data privacy.
Although the rollout of the EU AI Act is still evolving, it is clear that the regulation was heavily informed by ISO 42001 principles, particularly around governance, risk management, and accountability.
At a high level, the EU AI Act focuses on four primary areas:
- Risk-based regulatory prioritization : AI systems are categorized by risk:
- Unacceptable risks (e.g., social scoring) are largely prohibited
- High-risk activities (e.g., processing personal data) are tightly regulated
- Limited-risk systems (e.g., chatbots) require transparency measures
- Minimal-risk applications (e.g., video game features) face minimal regulation
- Regulatory burdens on providers : Most obligations apply to AI providers impacting EU users, regardless of where the provider is based.
- User protections before obligations : AI regulation is designed to safeguard users, placing relatively limited obligations directly on them.
- Rules for general-purpose AI : Publicly accessible AI systems must be transparent about potential risks and impacts associated with their use.
Like ISO 42001, the EU AI Act emphasizes strong governance and accountability. It requires organizations to take responsibility for human actors and AI system operations, while promoting transparency and risk-based oversight across the AI lifecycle.
Asia-Pacific AI Regulations and ISO 42001
While the United States currently leads in AI market size, the Asia-Pacific region is the fastest-growing hub for AI adoption. Organizations seeking to expand into major economies such as China and Japan must navigate a diverse and evolving set of AI regulations.
According to leading AI legal experts, the regional landscape includes:
- Mainland China – Regulations prioritize state security and robust transparency, requiring organizations to disclose the logic behind AI algorithms.
- Hong Kong – AI rules focus on adapting existing data privacy protections to safeguard individual rights while supporting innovation.
- Singapore – Singapore encourages AI experimentation under light, accessible guidance, promoting innovation while maintaining basic safeguards.
- Japan – Regulations emphasize best practices and consensus-building, with more detailed guidance in sensitive sectors like healthcare.
- South Korea – Emerging AI regulations aim to balance industry growth with clear governance and risk assessment requirements.
- Taiwan – Regulatory efforts promote AI adoption and international collaboration, with strong attention to ethics and individual rights protection.
Although Asia-Pacific AI regulations are less uniform than those in Europe or the U.S., common trends are emerging: transparency, accountability, risk management, and ethical AI practices. These themes align closely with ISO 42001, making it a practical framework for organizations seeking consistent AI governance across the region.
Optimize Your AI Compliance Today
Looking ahead, ISO 42001 serves as a foundational governance framework that aligns closely with many AI regulations worldwide. Organizations aiming to meet or exceed AI compliance requirements in the U.S. and internationally can benefit from implementing ISO 42001 proactively, as its principles are reflected across emerging laws.
At RSI Security, we have helped numerous organizations navigate compliance challenges across data privacy, cybersecurity, and AI-specific legislation. By establishing disciplined governance upfront, organizations gain the confidence to innovate and scale responsibly. Our team can help you rethink AI governance, ensuring your operations meet regulatory expectations while supporting business growth.
While ISO 42001 does not replace jurisdiction-specific legal obligations, it provides a structured governance foundation that many emerging AI regulations reference or build upon.
Take the next step in AI compliance: contact RSI Security today to learn how our advisory services can help your organization achieve regulatory readiness and strengthen AI risk management.
Download Our ISO 42001 Checklist