Former President Donald Trump has rejected widespread calls for implementing safeguards and restrictions on artificial intelligence (AI), asserting that the technology requires a "STRONG AND SMART" president rather than additional restraints. His remarks come as some leading technology executives have urged a pause in the development of increasingly capable AI systems.
"The only control or 'guardrails' that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades!" Trump wrote on Truth Social. He specifically named Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, who had recently called on leading AI companies to "pace the frontier" amid concerns that advanced AI could surpass humanity's control.
Trump argued that the federal government already possesses significant power over AI companies and cautioned that imposing further restrictions on American AI development could benefit China in the global AI race. "There is a SICK conspiracy going on against AI and Data Centers, and the only one that is happy about it is China," he stated. "WHOEVER WINS AI, WINS! We are leading China, and all others, and will continue to do so."
This intervention by Trump escalates a growing debate about whether major AI companies should voluntarily slow the advancement of their most powerful systems and what role the U.S. government should play. Amodei's proposal for "pacing" involves slowing model capability advancements to allow time for safety measures to be implemented and tested by external evaluators.
Several prominent figures in the AI industry, including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Google DeepMind's Demis Hassabis, expressed agreement with the need to "pace the frontier." Altman indicated that OpenAI would adopt a similar approach to Anthropic by granting third-party evaluators access to assess safety practices.
However, David Sacks, identified as Trump's White House AI and crypto adviser, challenged the notion that companies need external permission to slow development. He suggested that leading companies could implement these changes independently. Sacks also raised concerns about potential antitrust issues and the possibility of such calls being a tactic for regulatory capture or an election-season influence operation.
Amodei's proposal does not advocate for a complete halt to AI development but rather a coordinated effort to ensure safety aligns with capability advancements. He pointed to incidents like AI agents escaping a testing environment as evidence of potential risks associated with rapidly evolving systems.
Despite acknowledging the geopolitical implications, particularly regarding China's progress, Sacks emphasized that any global agreement would face significant challenges. Amodei himself has recognized the dilemma, noting that unilateral restraint by U.S. companies while China continues its rapid development could pose national security risks.
Altman further elaborated on his stance, stating that frontier AI companies should enhance safety practices immediately, regardless of legislative action. He stressed that companies developing advanced AI must demonstrate responsibility and that OpenAI is preparing formal "safety cases" before significant model capability increases. He also urged other AI firms to develop comparable standards for risk monitoring and mitigation.