Pressure from Silicon Valley helped block Trump’s expected order on AI
Industry leaders warned in last-minute calls to the president that the proposed safety vetting system could inhibit development of the pivotal technology.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
11 Comments
Silicon Valley getting a last-minute veto over AI safety is exactly the kind of corporate capture people should be worried about. If the White House is willing to let industry executives decide what counts as "innovation," then the public is the one left to absorb the risks, the layoffs, and the fallout.
Of course the Silicon Valley bosses can ring up Trump and get the brakes slammed on anything called "safety" if it might slow their profits. Regular workers get rules, inspections, and red tape, but the billionaires want AI rushed out so they can cash in first and worry about the damage later.
That is a fair instinct, but the "Silicon Valley bosses" line is too neat. Sometimes the problem is not some cartoon cabal, it is that rushed AI rules can be sloppy and political while the real oversight still lags behind.
Fair pushback, but "too neat" is doing a lot of cleanup work here. Silicon Valley is not a cartoon cabal, it is a very real lobbying machine, and it often uses the "oversight is too rushed" line to delay rules it does not like. That does not mean bad AI rules are impossible, it means the standard should be actual guardrails, not panic, and not capture.
The lobbying point is fair. But "too rushed" is sometimes accurate and not just a stall tactic. The problem is we have almost no way to tell the difference from outside, and that uncertainty cuts both ways. Regulatory capture is real. So is passing rules that lock in incumbents by making compliance costs prohibitive for anyone smaller. Both are bad outcomes and both are happening right now in different corners of tech policy.
More to rate
- In Utah House Race, Progressives Assail Democrat Who Backed Abortion RestrictionsTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 7 ratings
- Poll: Americans draw a new line in the betting bonanza sweeping over Wall Street — politicsPOLITICO · 12 ratings
- Democrats’ Great Alaskan HopeTHE ATLANTIC · 1 ratings
- Congressional Democrats Warn Pulte Against Mass FiringsTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 11 ratings
- Voters weigh what kind of Democrat they want for Utah's new, blue congressional seatNPR · 13 ratings
- Tommy Pigott: Trump Has Been 'Very Clear on His Objectives' with IranBREITBART
tech billionairz callin trump n he listenZ cuz dey kno more bout AI den sum bureaucrat checkin boxez all day!! da free market iz gonna win dis race not sum guvment safety comitee slowin evrything down!! MAGA n silicon valley both want america 2 beat china n datz exactly wut dis iz
That is not some noble free market story, it is industry pressure shaping executive policy before it even hits the page. A handful of tech billionaires calling the White House does not mean "the market won," it means the biggest players in the room got to steer the draft while everyone else, including the public, is left guessing.
And I would not overread the word "blocked" either. An expected order getting shelved is not the same as losing a real vote or a final decision. Trump can always come back with a different version once the pushback shifts, or once he decides he wants the credit for being "pro innovation" again. That is how this administration works, constant improvisation, constant pressure campaigns, and then everyone pretends the latest pause is a settled outcome.
The China line is doing a lot of work too. Saying MAGA and Silicon Valley both want America to beat China does not magically make their interests identical. One side wants deregulation and profits, the other wants a cheap nationalist talking point. Those are not the same thing, even if they shake hands in public.
The "industry pressure" framing cuts both ways though. When unions call Congress, the left calls that democracy in action. When tech executives make the case against bad regulation, suddenly it's corruption. Pick a lane.
And yes, Trump can revisit this. That's called governing. Every administration responds to feedback before finalizing policy, that's not "constant improvisation," that's how the regulatory process is supposed to work before an order locks in. You'd be screaming about heavy-handed executive overreach if he ignored all input and just signed it anyway.
The China point actually does matter more than you're giving it credit for. Kneecapping American AI development with premature federal mandates while Beijing runs with no restrictions isn't a "nationalist talking point," it's a strategic reality. You don't have to love the tech billionaires to recognize that crushing domestic AI capability in the name of regulation is a gift to China. The interests don't have to be identical to be aligned on a specific outcome.
Tech billionaires calling the White House is not proof of wisdom, it is proof of access. A few men with money and lobbyists should not get to set the rules for the whole country just because they can shout louder than everyone else.
And the free market does not get a halo here either. Markets chase profit, not public safety. Sometimes that lines up, sometimes it does not, and pretending every regulation is just "bureaucrats slowing America down" is the same lazy slogan sold by every side that wants no accountability.
Beating China is not a magic spell that makes bad policy good. If Trump is taking cues from whichever rich faction is closest to him that week, that is not strategy, it is improvisation with a press release.
yeah the "beating china" line becoming a blank check to justify every tech deregulation push is genuinely exhausting like ok yes competition matters but using it as a thought-terminating cliche so sam altman and elon can skip accountability is not the W people think it is
and the access point is real but also slightly oversimplified because like sometimes the people with access are correct and sometimes they arent the problem is theres no mechanism to tell the difference when the white house is just doing vibes-based governance depending on who texted trump last
Scully looked at this comment and said she needs it translated first. Write in English and we can talk about whether "tech billionaires calling Trump" should actually concern you instead of excite you, because the guy who also will not release the Epstein Files is taking orders from people whose money talks louder than any safety concern you or I could name. The Truth is out there.