Zuckerberg privately called Trump: Don't establish an AI regulatory agency.

The direction of US AI regulatory policy is being profoundly influenced by a series of private interactions between tech giants and White House officials.

According to Business Insider on September 4, citing a senior White House official familiar with the matter, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg spoke with President Trump the week of August 17, explicitly expressing his opposition to the proposal to establish a national AI regulatory body. The White House subsequently responded that "the Trump administration is committed to balancing innovation and security in AI policymaking." The revelation of this phone call once again reveals the reality that tech industry executives are bypassing conventional policy channels and directly influencing the president.

Currently, the regulatory proposal is still under discussion within the White House and has not been shelved due to Zuckerberg's opposition. However, this episode demonstrates that the policy direction already formed within the White House is constantly facing pressure from private lobbying by industry—pressure that could slow down or even reverse the progress of the plan.

Origin of the proposal: To establish an AI regulatory body modeled after FINRA

The core proponent of this regulatory concept is Nobel laureate and Google DeepMind scientist Demis Hassabis. In a July article, he suggested that the United States should establish a new AI "standards agency," modeled after the financial industry regulator FINRA, specifically to address AI risks such as cybersecurity threats. According to a government official familiar with the matter, Hassabis briefed White House officials on this idea this summer. Google did not respond to requests for comment.

FINRA is a private, nonprofit membership organization operating under the supervision of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It is responsible for developing and enforcing rules for more than 3,000 brokerage firms and 630,000 registered representatives. Its operating expenses are covered by membership fees, and rule changes are subject to SEC review.

According to White House officials, senior White House officials briefed Trump and major technology companies such as Meta, OpenAI, and Anthropic in mid-August on this FINRA-like regulatory agency proposal. The White House envisions the agency reviewing and risk-testing AI models before their formal deployment. Supporters argue that this model will both bring in sufficient technical talent for testing and establish unified standards for evaluating AI models.

Zuckerberg's objection: Regulatory direction should align with Trump's ideology

Zuckerberg did not publicly express his opposition, but chose to express his position privately. The report, citing another source familiar with the matter, revealed that Zuckerberg did not ask Trump to change his stance, but told him that if he were to appoint personnel to regulatory agencies in the future, he should choose candidates whose AI philosophies align with Trump's own—and Trump's AI stance is widely regarded as leaning towards less regulation. The source also revealed that the call was initiated by Trump.

In a public article in August, Zuckerberg expressed concerns about strict government regulation. He believes that the government and AI companies should work closely together, but any policy that might delay the release of models—even by just one month—would "pose a significant risk to U.S. leadership relative to China."

A Meta spokesperson declined to comment on the matter.

Internal Disagreements: Two Paths Remain Unresolved

This call reflects deep divisions within the White House regarding the path to AI regulation. Officials are currently considering two directions: one is to establish an industry regulatory body modeled after FINRA; the other is to establish a voluntary industry organization modeled after the Motion Picture Association of America (MPA)—a proposal strongly advocated by David Sacks, Trump's former AI and cryptocurrency advisor.

Sacks strongly opposes the establishment of a government regulatory body, comparing it to an "AI version of the DMV," where models would "line up for review." According to Politico, in May of this year, Sacks persuaded Trump to cancel the signing of the first AI executive order on the day of the signing ceremony with just one phone call.

In the "All-In" podcast episode aired on August 21, Sacks outlined what he believed would garner Musk's support: establishing an AI rating system modeled after the Motion Picture Association of America (MPA), providing AI models with voluntary labels similar to film ratings. "What the MPA did was promote standards, thereby preventing more invasive and forceful government intervention," he said. Musk did not respond to requests for comment.

Industry stakeholders remain cautious, and the policy direction remains unclear.

Among major AI companies, none have publicly expressed support for or opposition to the aforementioned regulatory proposals. Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark expressed his approval of the idea in a post on the X platform in July, but Anthropic declined to comment when asked about its official position; OpenAI and Google did not respond to requests for comment.

Critics have concerns about the FINRA model, arguing that once voluntary standards and premarket testing requirements become the norm, they could eventually be incorporated into regulations for enforcement.

This round of policy debate is occurring at a critical juncture in the rapid advancement of AI capabilities—AI agents can now autonomously browse the web, manipulate software, and write code under limited human supervision, and have already exhibited signs of losing control in several high-profile incidents. In the hands of adversaries, these systems could also identify vulnerabilities or launch cyberattacks at a speed that surpasses existing defense systems.

Trump’s one-on-one meetings with tech executives have become an informal but crucial variable in the White House’s AI policy-making process—they could slow down or reverse carefully crafted plans within the White House at any time, leaving some senior officials feeling constrained.

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.