AI Red Scare: New ban on CCP software by Governor Landry 

An executive order signed by Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry on Sept. 29, 2025, banned free artificial intelligence (AI) programs made under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in Louisiana schools, colleges and state agencies. The only named program in the order is DeepSeek, a Chinese AI software. 

The order outlines the reasoning as one of security, citing a report on DeepSeek which stated that the software “engages in covert manipulation of information to ensure the results it presents align with CCP propaganda.” The report also warned that DeepSeek sends American data to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). 

Data uploaded to servers in PRC is “subject-to the country’s cybersecurity and intelligence laws, which compel companies to share data with state authorities,” according to Landry’s order. He emphasizes the security risk, and adds that the use of DeepSeek has already been banned by the United States Department of Commerce. 

Landry’s stated purpose in the order is to protect “business, individual and student data” in accordance with the responsibility of federal and state laws which require agencies and educational institutions to do so. 

The Louisiana order extends beyond DeepSeek and other technologies monitored by the CCP to software from other hostile foreign nations, but those nations remain unspecified. The principle focus stated in the executive order is to avoid the “Garbage In, Garbage Out” mechanism used by artificial intelligence systems being banned. 

The implication of “Garbage In, Garbage Out” in this circumstance means that the information put into an AI system is the same quality of information a user will receive. The use of the phrase here criticizes the quality of DeepSeek and other AI systems that will be affected by this ban. 

This ban prohibits state-issued devices and state-regulated software from downloading the DeepSeek application or using it otherwise. 

Therefore, no students at public universities or elementary education institutions will be able to use the software, having to opt instead for American AI systems or not use AI at all. The same is true for government and state employees using work devices. 

Beyond the impacts on governmental and educational institutions, the order recognizes, first, that the ban is important due to the increasing importance of AI in the state system, work and society as a whole. Due to this importance, the focus on regulation of AI has proportionately become important. 

Louisiana is not the first state in the United States to have banned DeepSeek in some capacity. Texas banned the software on government devices in January of this year. 

New York, Virginia and Iowa banned the DeepSeek application in February, and Tennessee and Oklahoma banned it in March. 

North Carolina banned the app on state devices, South Dakota banned it on government-issued devices and Alabama banned DeepSeek and other Chinese technologies from state devices. 

The order also comes following a letter sent to Congress signed by 21 state attorneys general in March urging a bill to prohibit government devices from downloading and using DeepSeek. The letter encourages the passage of a bill of this nature for the purpose of preserving American secrets by preventing Chinese espionage. 

However, despite this letter, there have still been no federally enacted, broad regulatory groups or widespread regulations for the development or use of AI. 

A publication from Congress.gov speaks more to the extent of federal regulation, stating that “outside of broad AI governance frameworks, most of the U.S. regulatory efforts regarding AI have centered on (1) federal agency assessments and enforcement of existing regulatory authorities, (2) exploration of whether individual agencies require additional authorities, and (3) securing voluntary commitments from industry.” 

In this breakdown, the publication highlights the crucial areas of regulation from the U.S. government. With the rapid development of AI around the world and in the U.S. itself, this regulation may be lacking. With the largest regulation on AI coming directly from individual states, the country may be setting a precedent for how it handles this form of technological regulation. 

If it becomes typical for state action to be the first line of defense in AI regulation, then the need for federal regulation may not disappear, but the landscape may significantly shift. 

While there has been more than a negligible amount of laws passed regarding AI at the federal level or pertaining to federal business, the development speed of AI may be outpacing these laws. 

Having the state be the main perpetrator of regulation may be able to expedite this process, ensuring safety. However, it could possibly prevent the federal government from taking accountability in securing the safety of its citizens. 

With multiple states having passed similar laws to Louisiana, what is left to curate are regulations on American–and ally–made AI softwares.