White House Chief of Staff: The U.S. government "will not designate" AI winners and losers

```

White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles issued a statement on Wednesday, clearly indicating that the Trump administration will not "pick winners or losers" in the field of artificial intelligence. This move has been widely interpreted as a sign that the administration is less likely to directly intervene in reviewing new AI models. As the Trump administration prepares to roll out a new round of AI policy directives, this is the latest signal from the core circle.

Wiles wrote on her new X platform account: "On AI and cybersecurity, President Trump and his administration have no intention of picking winners or losers. This administration has only one goal: to ensure the highest quality and safest technology is rapidly deployed to face any threat." She also stated that the government "will continue to lead America-first efforts, empowering America’s great innovators rather than bureaucratic institutions, promoting the secure deployment of powerful technologies while safeguarding U.S. security."

This statement comes at a time when the market is closely watching two major uncertainties: whether the government will implement a review mechanism for new models, and whether it will seek to resolve ongoing tensions with Anthropic PBC. Wiles’s statement did not specify any detailed policy directive or timeline, and as of Wednesday evening, the White House had not provided further response.

This stance has somewhat eased concerns over increased regulation in the AI industry, but uncertainty over policy direction persists.

AI Review Mechanism: FDA-like Model Emerges

On the same day Wiles spoke out, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett signaled something entirely different. In an interview with Fox Business, he said, the government is studying an executive order aiming to establish an FDA-like review process for AI models. He stated that future models "that could present security vulnerabilities should go through a process and be proven safe before public release, just as drugs are approved by the FDA," adding that any such testing "will very likely" eventually cover all AI companies.

Previously, earlier this week, the U.S. government was already considering some form of review procedure. Wiles’s statement deliberately downplayed the government’s inclination for direct intervention in reviewing new models, but did not explicitly rule out the possibility, leaving subtle tension and uncertainty in policy direction.

As policy discussions heat up, the Commerce Department announced on Tuesday the expansion of a voluntary program for pre-release testing of AI models. Google (under Alphabet), Microsoft, and xAI have agreed to grant the U.S. government access to their models for assessing system capabilities and improving safety. OpenAI and Anthropic previously participated in the program, which is led by the AI Standards and Innovation Center under the Commerce Department.

Anthropic Confrontation Continues to Escalate

One of the core backgrounds to the policy discussion is the unresolved tension between the government and Anthropic. Earlier, the Pentagon listed Anthropic and its products as supply chain risks. Recently, developments with Anthropic’s Mythos model have sparked new concerns—it is reported this model is capable of detecting and exploiting software vulnerabilities. Anthropic has so far refused public release, allowing only a limited number of enterprises to test it internally, citing the company’s own assessment that the model is too risky for widespread deployment.

After Anthropic publicly acknowledged that Mythos could pose a global cybersecurity threat, efforts to resolve the standoff between the government and the company have visibly accelerated. Whether Wiles’s latest statement can open the door for resolving the deadlock remains to be seen.

Risk warning and disclaimerThe market has risks; investment should be cautious. This article does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it take into account the specific investment goals, financial situation or needs of any individual user. Users should consider whether any opinions, views or conclusions in this article fit their particular circumstances. Investment based on this article is at your own risk. ```