# Oregon’s AI Advisory Council delivered a five-action state-government plan Governor Tina Kotek announced Oregon’s final state-government AI action plan on February 12, 2025, linking governance, security, privacy and workforce recommendations. Canonical: https://rangoon.ai/insights/archive-oregon-state-ai-action-plan-february-2025/ Author: Rangoon Editorial (https://rangoon.ai/insights/editorial/) Published: 2026-10-24 Updated: 2026-10-24 Event date: 2025-02-12 Tags: [State government](https://rangoon.ai/insights/tags/state-government/), [AI security](https://rangoon.ai/insights/tags/ai-security/), [AI policy](https://rangoon.ai/insights/tags/ai-policy/), [AI governance](https://rangoon.ai/insights/tags/ai-governance/) Source note: Historical reporting, not legal advice: Oregon Governor Tina Kotek’s official February 12, 2025 release announced that the State Government Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council had finalized and approved its recommended action plan. The release says the plan recommended executive actions on governance and security frameworks, reference architecture, privacy and workforce needs. The Council archive records delivery of the final plan to the Governor on February 11. A recommendation is not itself a statute, regulation, funding award or proof that every recommendation was implemented. Image: State AI action-plan path. Original Rangoon explanatory diagram: Source boundary: dated primary release reporting; original editorial analysis. No vendor interface, photograph, measurement result, or endorsement implied. ## Key takeaways - The February 12 event was an official announcement of a recommended state-government AI action plan, not a new binding AI law. - Oregon grouped its recommendations around governance, security, privacy, reference architecture and workforce readiness. - A public plan can define priorities while leaving adoption, ownership, funding and evidence of implementation unresolved. ## The dated event was an official announcement of a finalized recommended plan [source 1](https://apps.oregon.gov/oregon-newsroom/OR/GOV/Posts/Post/governor-kotek-announces-artificial-intelligence-action-plan) [source 2](https://www.oregon.gov/eis/Pages/ai-advisory-council.aspx) On February 12, 2025, Governor Tina Kotek announced that Oregon’s State Government Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council had finalized its recommended action plan. The Governor’s official release says the Council approved the plan that day, while the Council archive records delivery of the final recommended plan to the Governor on February 11. Both dates describe adjacent steps in the same policy process, not a new statute or automatic operating mandate. The Council had been created by Executive Order 23-26 at the end of 2023, according to the official archive. This article uses the Governor’s dated public announcement as the event record and preserves the difference between executive-policy recommendations, later administrative action and a binding legal requirement. ## The release described five strategic executive actions rather than a general AI endorsement [source 1](https://apps.oregon.gov/oregon-newsroom/OR/GOV/Posts/Post/governor-kotek-announces-artificial-intelligence-action-plan) Oregon’s release says the Council organized recommendations into five strategic executive actions. It identifies governance and security frameworks, reference architecture, privacy concerns and workforce needs as the main areas. Those labels are important because a state plan can support use of new technology while still placing conditions around how agencies select, configure and supervise it. The release frames the goal as guiding state-government AI use in a way aligned with Oregon policies and values while supporting public servants delivering customer service. It does not name a universal model, approve a particular vendor, establish a required architecture or prove that a given agency system met the recommended framework. A plan communicates intended direction; operational evidence requires agency-specific records. ## Council recommendations are distinct from procurement decisions, data rules and production approval [source 1](https://apps.oregon.gov/oregon-newsroom/OR/GOV/Posts/Post/governor-kotek-announces-artificial-intelligence-action-plan) [source 2](https://www.oregon.gov/eis/Pages/ai-advisory-council.aspx) The Council archive describes a governor-ordered body created to recommend an action plan for awareness, education and use of AI in state government. That mandate gives the plan a defined advisory role. It should not be inflated into a claim that Oregon had enacted a statewide AI statute, completed impact assessments for every agency or guaranteed privacy and security across deployments. A recommendation about reference architecture, for example, does not identify an agency’s actual data classification, access controls, retention policy or contract terms. Likewise, workforce readiness is different from proof that staff were trained or authorized for a particular use. The 2025 event is valuable precisely because it made a public policy framework inspectable, while retaining the difference between framework, implementation and observed result. ## A state AI plan needs accountable owners and checkable implementation records [source 1](https://apps.oregon.gov/oregon-newsroom/OR/GOV/Posts/Post/governor-kotek-announces-artificial-intelligence-action-plan) [source 2](https://www.oregon.gov/eis/Pages/ai-advisory-council.aspx) For an agency to turn a plan into a reliable operating program, each recommendation needs an accountable owner, a defined scope, a decision record and evidence of completion or an explicit exception. A governance framework can identify approval gates; a reference architecture can identify required service boundaries; privacy and security work can identify data categories and risk controls; workforce work can identify roles and training. Those artifacts make it possible to distinguish a public aspiration from an implemented control. They do not make the February 2025 plan legally binding by themselves. Oregon’s announcement records a real policy milestone: its advisory council presented a recommended action plan after public meetings and subcommittee work. It does not establish that every state agency adopted all five actions or that a particular AI system is safe, lawful or authorized. ## Sources 1. [Office of Oregon Governor: Governor Kotek Announces Artificial Intelligence Action Plan](https://apps.oregon.gov/oregon-newsroom/OR/GOV/Posts/Post/governor-kotek-announces-artificial-intelligence-action-plan) 2. [Oregon Enterprise Information Services: State Government AI Advisory Council archive](https://www.oregon.gov/eis/Pages/ai-advisory-council.aspx) ## Related reading - [Nevada’s AB 325 put human final-decision boundaries around emergency AI use](https://rangoon.ai/insights/archive-nevada-ab325-emergency-ai-decisions-may-2025/) - [UK’s third-party AI assurance roadmap mapped professionalization, information access and a planned innovation fund](https://rangoon.ai/insights/archive-uk-trusted-third-party-ai-assurance-roadmap-september-2025/) - [UK published an AI cyber-security code with 13 voluntary principles and an implementation guide](https://rangoon.ai/insights/archive-uk-ai-cyber-security-code-january-2025/) ## More information - [Documentation index](https://rangoon.ai/llms.txt) - [AI access and policies](https://rangoon.ai/ai/) - [Source repository](https://github.com/hypler-dev/rangoon)