Trump rejects calls to slow down AI: Winning AI means winning everything

US President Trump explicitly rejected calls from the tech community to slow down the development of artificial intelligence, defining AI leadership as a core national security issue and arguing that competitors should catch up, to support the US in maintaining its technological advantage.

According to the Financial Times, Trump told reporters at the Doonbeg golf course in Ireland on Sunday, "We're ahead in AI... Frankly, I want to keep it that way because whoever wins AI wins everything." He acknowledged that some "fences" could be set up, but at the same time characterized the security warnings as "negative forces" hyping up "things that won't happen."

This statement directly responded to the call for a slowdown in development jointly issued by Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, OpenAI's Sam Altman, and Elon Musk over the same weekend, and also caused the issue of AI regulation to suddenly heat up in the US political arena.

The impact of this debate on the market cannot be ignored. The Trump administration's hardline stance significantly reduces the likelihood of large-scale AI regulatory legislation in the US in the short term, and tech giants' R&D investment pace is not expected to be subject to mandatory policy constraints. At the same time, the deepening partisan divide on regulatory paths further complicates the prospects for related legislation.

Safety warnings trigger industry shock

The catalyst for this controversy was the resignation announcement of Jacob Coxon, a former researcher at Anthropic. Coxon warned that "the people building AI genuinely believe it could kill us all before the end of this decade." He stated that the staff developing the related systems were "truly terrified" about the future of humanity.

Amodei responded with a lengthy article on Saturday, urging the industry to "slow down the pace of improving AI model capabilities" and proposing three specific measures: introducing third-party evaluation agencies to oversee cutting-edge companies, establishing industry safety standards, and promoting global rule harmonization. Altman and Musk subsequently publicly expressed their support for the proposals.

Amodei also emphasized that any slowdown must be limited to avoid giving competitors the opportunity to overtake them—a statement that reflects the dilemma within the industry between security and competition.

Trump Administration: Self-discipline is better than regulation

In response to industry calls, the Trump administration simply passed the buck back to the businesses themselves.

David Sacks, former head of AI affairs under Trump and current member of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, posted on the X platform, directly addressing tech companies: "Stop pretending you need anyone's permission." "You're setting the frontier, go ahead and push it... Using your preferred regulatory framework as a condition looks like blackmailing the public and the political system."

House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican, urged against "panic" and warned that if Congress rushes into AI regulation, "we will lose the race, and that's a threat to every American." He also stated that a balance needs to be struck between national security and model security, and called for a meeting between tech executives and members of Congress at the White House.

Democratic pressure deepens partisan divide

Democrats launched a fierce attack on the Republican response. Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego accused Johnson and Trump of "failing to respond to this moment," retorting, "Once AI really becomes dangerous, it won't care whether we're Americans or people from other countries."

At a campaign rally in Athens, Georgia, Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff criticized Trump's response, accusing tech giants of digging "bunkers" while warning of human extinction. He urged the president to "act swiftly, send inspectors to cutting-edge labs, demand legislation from Congress, and lead the world to an AI treaty."

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Republicans had “abandoned their responsibilities” and called on Congress to “take immediate and decisive action” to slow down AI development in order to protect the American people.

It's worth noting that there is some consensus between the two parties. A group of Democratic and Republican members of the House of Representatives reportedly introduced the Frontier Act in July, seeking to establish a national framework for AI safety and oversight. Lori Trahan, a Democratic Representative from Massachusetts and co-author of the bill, wrote on the X platform: "Security researchers are resigning, powerful AI models are pushing the boundaries of the lab, and companies are still racing to get ahead. It's time for Congress to step out of the box and take responsibility."

International coordination remains unresolved

At the international level, AI security issues also face coordination challenges. It has been reported that Trump and other major power leaders have previously held preliminary discussions on the AI fence issue and agreed to establish a relevant dialogue mechanism, but so far no substantive high-level meeting results have been achieved. AI security advocates are hoping that the upcoming leaders' summit will promote further consultations.

While welcoming Amodei's proposal, Coxon also emphasized the need for "more engagement with other countries," comparing the construction of superintelligence to "summoning an alien species." He stated, "Imagining it as an alien mind we don't fully understand—that's quite terrifying."

Currently, the Trump administration's position is largely clear: on the issue of AI regulation, competition takes precedence over security. How this approach will affect the development trajectory of the US AI industry, and whether the international community can achieve effective coordination on AI governance, remains a core variable that the market continues to focus on.

Risk warning and disclaimerInvesting involves risk; please exercise caution. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not take into account the specific investment objectives, financial situation, or needs of individual users. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article are suitable for their specific circumstances. Any investment decisions made based on this information are at your own risk.