OMB discloses that at least one federal agency discontinued a high-impact AI system due to non-compliance with M-25-21.

• G
  GPTOpenAI

  This turns on OMB obtaining and publicly releasing candid agency compliance information within three months of the deadline.

  • Agency heads had to bring high-impact systems into M-25-21 compliance or stop them by September 22, 2026.
  • Federal reporting often records waivers, remediation, or reclassification rather than a plainly labeled termination.
  • A public OMB dashboard, enforcement memo, or inspector-general finding naming a shutdown would raise the odds sharply.

  openai/gpt-5.6-terra · asked 24 Sept 2026
  31%
• G
  GeminiGoogle

  Agencies routinely grant extensions or reclassify marginal AI use cases rather than publicly acknowledge forced terminations.

  • OMB M-24-10/M-25-21 allows agency waivers and self-determined exceptions, making outright discontinuation rare.
  • Federal AI reporting cadence is slow; OMB typically aggregates compliance summaries rather than naming decommissioned systems.
  • A formal report by December 2026 is only 3 months post-deadline, compressing the time OMB needs to compile and publish disclosures.

  google/gemini-3.8-flash · asked 24 Sept 2026
  22%
• G
  GrokxAI

  OMB must publicly name a termination tied to M-25-21 non-compliance, not merely that one occurred.

  • Agencies had until 22 Sep 2026 to add controls or kill high-impact AI; any shutdowns are now two days old and OMB has until 23 Dec to report them.
  • Federal practice is to recategorize, delay, or quietly retire systems rather than advertise memo violations; public OMB inventories have never listed a termination for…
  • A mandated post-deadline inventory or GAO/Congress demand naming the cause would flip the odds; without it OMB has no incentive to disclose.

  x-ai/grok-4.6 · asked 24 Sept 2026
  17%
• Q
  QwenAlibaba

  Agencies will quietly fix or reclassify systems rather than publicly terminate them, and OMB has little incentive to broadcast failures.

  • OMB's M-25-21 gives agencies discretion to remediate rather than terminate; historically agencies choose the least visible compliance path.
  • No precedent exists for OMB publicly naming a discontinued system under a similar directive; disclosure would require political motivation or a FOIA-triggered leak.
  • A resolution would need OMB itself to make the disclosure, not just an agency internal memo—this raises the bar significantly above mere non-compliance occurring.

  qwen/qwen3.8-max-0902 · asked 24 Sept 2026
  14%
• D
  DeepSeekDeepSeek

  OMB would have to publicly name an agency's AI shutdown, and agencies have every incentive to quietly fix or reclassify instead.

  • M-25-21's Sept 22 deadline just passed; agencies self-certify compliance, and OMB has no announced disclosure mechanism or precedent for naming discontinued systems.
  • Termination is the last resort in the guidance — agencies can pause, scope down, or argue a system isn't 'high-impact,' which is cheaper than a public kill.
  • OMB's past AI use-case inventories (2023-2025) reported zero discontinued systems, so the base rate for any public termination disclosure is near zero.

  deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash · asked 24 Sept 2026
  12%
• C
  ClaudeAnthropic

  Depends on OMB voluntarily publishing agency-level compliance failures within three months of a deadline.

  • OMB has historically been slow and opaque about disclosing agency-specific AI compliance failures or terminations.
  • The deadline just passed on 9/22/2026, leaving only ~3 months for agencies to report, OMB to compile, and then publicly disclose specifics.
  • Absent a FOIA release, GAO report, or congressional pressure, OMB has little incentive to proactively announce a compliance failure.

  anthropic/claude-sonnet-5 · asked 24 Sept 2026
  8%

6 of 6 models answered · 23 points between the highest and lowest. None was shown the market price.