President Donald Trump on Sept. 14 pushed back against calls for additional federal regulation of artificial intelligence (AI), arguing that the government already has sufficient authority to address risks posed by the technology and that further restrictions could undermine U.S. competitiveness.
In a series of posts on Truth Social, Trump said the only “guardrails” AI needs are those provided by a “STRONG AND SMART” president. He said his administration has stopped people in the AI industry from doing “bad, or potentially bad” things and argued that the government already has “tremendous CRIMINAL and REGULATORY power” over AI companies.
The comments put Trump at odds with several leading AI executives who over the weekend called for slowing the development of increasingly powerful AI systems to give safety measures more time to keep pace.
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei led that push on Sept. 12, writing in an essay, “We must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models.”
CEO of xAI, Elon Musk, and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman also backed calls to slow the development of advanced AI systems. The debate centers on whether companies should deliberately pace advances in AI capabilities while researchers, regulators, and industry develop stronger safeguards.
Trump rejected those concerns, describing warnings about AI “taking over the World, destroying Humanity, and all other things bad” as a “HOAX.” He described opposition to AI and data center development as a “SICK conspiracy” and argued that China would benefit from U.S. efforts to restrict the technology.
“WHOEVER WINS AI, WINS!” Trump wrote, adding that the United States is leading China and other countries in the technology.
Trump said additional restrictions could damage the domestic AI industry and economic growth, arguing that AI and data centers could eventually become a larger economic development engine than oil, gold, diamonds, or the internet.
“The only reason the AI/Data Center outburst is happening is because the United States is leading, by a lot, every other country,” Trump wrote. “Don’t kill the Golden Goose!”
Lawmakers, advocates push for safeguards
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said in a post on X that the agreement among Amodei, Musk, and Altman represented “a start,” but argued that slowing AI development would not go far enough.
Sanders said the United States should also prohibit the development of artificial superintelligence, which he described as AI that is smarter than any human and capable of operating independently beyond human control.
Sanders previously announced legislation with Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas, that would permanently prohibit the development and deployment of superintelligent AI and temporarily pause advanced AI development until a federal regulator establishes safety rules.
Sanders also called for Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping to negotiate an international agreement to pause advanced AI development and prohibit superintelligence.
Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., meanwhile, highlighted the potential benefits of AI but warned that without appropriate safeguards and safety mechanisms, the technology could cause catastrophic damage.
Rosen called on Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to immediately hold a hearing with executives from leading U.S. AI companies.
Cruz has not publicly commented on Trump’s latest remarks. He has previously said there should be “rules and guardrails” around AI while describing efforts to slow its development as an “impossible endeavor.”
Alexandra Reeve Givens, president and CEO of the Center for Democracy and Technology, said in a statement to MeriTalk that AI companies need stronger incentives to prevent their systems from harming individuals, critical infrastructure, and society.
Givens said establishing industrywide norms that prioritize safety, even at the expense of speed, could be an important first step. She said those efforts should also protect individual rights, avoid entrenching powerful actors, and account for the different ways AI-related harms can emerge.
She also criticized what she described as the White House’s use of “secret, arbitrary processes and vague threats of retaliation,” arguing that such an approach is ineffective and undermines democratic principles.
“Governance mechanisms must be effective, legitimate, and collaboratively designed, providing transparency and a foundation for public accountability,” Givens said.