> For purposes of this Order, an individual or business is an "affiliated entity" or "affiliate" of DeepSeek AG if, directly or indirectly, either one controls or can control the other; or a third party controls or can control both.
This does not apply to open model weights, which are not a product or service, and does not apply to independent hosts of model weights if they have no affiliation with DeepSeek as defined.
> This Exclusion and Removal Order direct Federal civilian agencies⁸ to: (1) *exclude* DeepSeek, DeepSeek-affiliated entities⁹, and their products from civilian agency procurements,¹⁰ and (2) *remove* products provided by DeepSeek and DeepSeek entities, and third-party products and services developed using DeepSeek implementations, from civilian agency information technology systems.¹¹
> ⁹ For purposes of this Order, an individual or business is an "affiliated entity" or "affiliate" of DeepSeek AG if, directly or indirectly, either one controls or can control the other; or a third party controls or can control both. See 48 C.F.R. § 2.101 (definition of "affiliates").
> ¹⁰ To include third party implementations of DeepSeek used to provide products and services civilian agencies.
> ¹¹ Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 1323(c)(5)(A)(i), orders issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security would apply to civilian "information and communications technology," as that term is defined by 41 U.S.C. § 1321(5).
That's not obvious to me, and quoting a part of the order about affiliated entities doesn't explain it. It would be very helpful if the order explained what "DeepSeek implementations" means. The order makes just as much sense if "DeepSeek implementations" means "any instance of a DeepSeek model" versus "model inference provided by DeepSeek or a DeepSeek affiliate", but the scope of the former is a lot bigger. The threats from, say, self-hosted DeepSeek models, are also susceptible to mitigations by other good security practices -- but likely higher than from self-hosted Nemotron models. (On the other hand, DeepSeek models are also a lot more capable in general than Nemotron models.)
If you read the justifications for the order, there are zero mentions of open weights data or associated risks, and everything focuses on the use of DeepSeek commercial products with regards to their being hosted in China. The only mention that maybe could apply is "The models themselves may contain malware or other security vulnerabilities." but this is followed with another reference to a DeepSeek commercial product: "Indeed, open-source security research has found that the DeepSeek iOS mobile application contains multiple critical vulnerabilities."
The findings that form the basis of the order make no claims or references to open weights data at all, and plainly focus entirely on DeepSeek commercial products, so any attempt to apply the order to open weights data used by non-DeepSeek affiliated inference providers has not basis at all.
In particular, footnotes 10 and 13 seem to outright forbid using third-party inference providers of DeepSeek models, and the use of "implementation" there matches a broad meaning of "running a DeepSeek model" in the rest of the order.
An implementation must be a third party product that is using a product provided by the DeepSeek corporate entity.
That is not clear at all. Are open weights a "product"? The discussion of mobile app vulnerabilities treats the (freely provided, openly available) mobile app as a product. And the order is equally clear that it covers "products and services" from DeepSeek-affiliated corporate entities as well as "the DeepSeek corporate entity" itself.
I don't claim to have a definite answer; I think the order is awkwardly worded and maybe not fully developed. The footnotes I mentioned prohibit (all) procurements involving third-party "DeepSeek implementations"; that implies that a first-party (US Government) "DeepSeek implementation" would be allowed. Maybe that is intended, maybe it is not.
I don’t think there’s any direct precedent here, so maybe lawyers would need to get creative and find other references from past cases that might somewhat apply and try to convince the judge.
so if they say dont use deepseek, it means dont use the company & dont use the model. it is the only reasonable way to read this. you are looking for doorways where there arent any reasonable ones.
Anthropic says that if a model says they are an Anthropic model, that's it, it's distilled from Anthropic. They even use that as a "proof" DeepSeek is distilling their models.
Or do you want to say the Anthropic PR department is a bunch of liars and scammers?
I work for a bank, and local models are banned. I have been waiting for Opus 5.5 to be enabled, and it’s still being evaluated. Things take their time, models are evaluated, and risk assessed. There is nothing new here. And I am pretty much certain such practices have been in place in critical US agencies since a while.
A blanket ban is nothing more than a desperate attempt to delay the inevitable.
It means whatever they decide to enforce. The idea that the current administration considers itself constrained by the letter of any specific law or regulation (even its own) should be cold dead by now. But people still insist on treating with specifics out of habit I guess.
As others here are pointing out (somewhat obliquely, frustratingly), the Occam's explanation for this particular action is just that it's a solicitation for a bribe.
Clearly yes.
And more. "Developed using" is not just included code.
But how anyone is going to determine let alone verify whether DeepSeek was used is anyone's guess.