A public dispute among the leaders of America's most powerful artificial intelligence companies has thrust the question of how to regulate the fast-moving technology back into the national spotlight, with a key White House science adviser arguing that Congress — not corporate executives — should decide what comes next.
The debate erupted after Dario Amodei, chief executive of Anthropic, published an essay arguing that AI is advancing too quickly for researchers to continue building it safely. Within a day, OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman, SpaceX chief executive Elon Musk, and Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis all said they agreed on the need for a slower pace.
But by Monday morning, billionaire tech investor David Sacks had pushed back hard. In a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, Sacks rejected what he called «AI doomerism» and suggested Amodei might be motivated by self-interest. «I don't see what you see in the lab,» Sacks wrote. «If the unreleased models are scary enough that you think you should slow down, I support your decision to be responsible.» He then added: «But stop pretending you need anyone else's permission. Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory approval process that supersedes product liability.»
Sacks is co-chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, giving his views particular weight in the administration. His argument reflects a broader skepticism toward proposals that would allow AI companies to shape the rules governing their own industry.
The exchange has renewed attention on Congress, which would ultimately have to write any new laws or create a new agency with authority over AI. The Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton, has 21 members. The House Intelligence Committee, chaired by Arkansas Republican Rep. Rick Crawford, has 27 members. Those 48 lawmakers, chosen by party leaders in each chamber, are widely seen as among the most respected and capable legislators on both sides of the aisle.
Supporters of congressional action argue that these committees should take the lead in hearing from experts, debating the best path forward, and communicating with the public. The process is unlikely to produce quick results before the midterm elections, but committee staffs can begin briefing members on the competing arguments now.
The stakes extend beyond domestic policy. Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping is watching how the United States handles AI regulation, and President Trump has observed that when it comes to AI guardrails and China, Xi himself is the guardrail. The administration has signaled it will not accept a second-place finish in what some officials describe as an AI competition with Beijing.
At the same time, the American political tradition is marked by a reluctance to trust corporate giants with the authority to chart national laws. In a republic of laws, private-sector actions are presumed legal until proven otherwise — the foundation of the free market that has produced widespread abundance. That abundance was on display this past summer when World Cup crowds encountered the scale of American wealth, perhaps best symbolized by the Buc-ee's chain, leaving many foreign visitors amazed.
For now, the immediate question is whether Congress will deliberate carefully before intervening in the free market, or whether lawmakers will judge the moment urgent enough to move quickly. If they do, the debate that began among tech executives may soon shift to the Capitol, where the final decisions will be made.