Trump’s AI Czar Defends POTUS Push for Federal AI Oversight: The Regulatory Showdown Begins

The White House is drawing a line in the sand. Trump's newly appointed AI czar just stepped into the spotlight—not to unveil some shiny tech initiative, but to publicly defend the President's controversial push for federal AI oversight. It's a move that's rattling boardrooms from Silicon Valley to Wall Street.

Why Washington Wants the Keys

Forget gentle guidance. The administration's framing is about national security, economic primacy, and—let's be honest—control. The argument is that leaving AI's trajectory solely to corporate labs is a strategic gamble the U.S. can't afford. The czar's defense hinges on a simple premise: if a technology can reshape economies and militaries, it belongs on the federal radar.

The Industry Pushback is Already Here

Talk of federal rules triggers instant allergy symptoms in tech's elite. Visions of slowed innovation, compliance burdens, and that classic regulatory creep. The counter-argument is a familiar one: move fast, break things, and let the market sort it out. It's the same playbook that gave us social media—what could possibly go wrong?

A New Frontier for Political Theater

This isn't just a policy debate; it's political theater. Positioning the government as the necessary steward of a chaotic tech revolution plays to a specific base. It reframes the administration as forward-looking and responsible, a stark contrast to the 'move fast and break things' ethos of the previous tech boom. Expect hearings, dramatic soundbites, and lobbying budgets to balloon faster than a crypto token on hype alone.

The clash was inevitable. Now, the battle for AI's soul—and who gets to regulate its profits—officially begins. Just remember, when governments talk about 'guiding innovation,' it usually means finding a new revenue stream or a novel way to control the next big thing. After all, the most reliable AI in finance still seems to be the one that automates trading fees.

David Sacks defends Trump on AI

Donald TRUMP signed an executive order titled “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” aimed at establishing a unified federal regulatory framework for AI on Thursday. 

The move seeks to preempt or override state-level AI regulations, which the administration views as a “patchwork” that burdens companies and discourages U.S. competitiveness, particularly against China. 

However, it has drawn sharp criticism from Democrats, some states, and AI safety advocates, who argue it strips away essential consumer protections without providing immediate federal replacements.

Sacks disagrees, saying the move, which involves developing with Congress a common standard for oversight of the emerging technology, is more about easing a growing compliance burden for companies than anything else. 

Right now, AI model development is taking place across multiple states, all with their own regulatory standards. Sacks highlighted that as an issue. 

He acknowledged that the U.S. is currently leading China where AI is concerned, but that innovation could fall behind if forced to comply with a patchwork of conflicting AI rules emerging across all 50 states.

While speaking on Fox Business’ “Mornings with Maria”, he said, “If you have to report to 50 different state regulators at 50 different times with 50 different definitions, it’s extremely onerous. And it’s going to slow down innovation, and it’s going to hinder our progress in the AI race.”

“So if we want to stay in the lead, as President Trump has declared, we need to have a single national standard, one standard for AI, so that the most onerous states, the most draconian ones, can’t hold you up,” he added. “We want to work with Congress on this.”

Until a national standard is in place, Sacks claims the administration is prepared to push back against what it sees as excessively restrictive state regulations.

Some states will not accept the order without a fight

The order is widely expected to face legal challenges, especially from states with provisions already in place. Many of these states are expected to treat the order as a case of federal overreach as it affects their respective abilities to govern technology within their borders. 

California State Senator Scott Wiener has already drawn the battle lines. “It’s absurd for Trump to think he can weaponize the DOJ and Commerce to undermine those state rights,” Wiener said in a statement. “If the Trump Administration tries to enforce this ridiculous order, we will see them in court.”

Democratic U.S. Senator Brian Schatz has also shared plans to draft legislation that WOULD seek a full repeal of the order.

“Embracing the amazing possibilities of AI can’t come at the cost of leaving Americans vulnerable to its profound risks, which is exactly what this executive order does,” Schatz said. “Congress has a responsibility to get this technology right – and quickly – but states must be allowed to act in the public interest in the meantime.”

Meanwhile, Sacks has said the provision that calls on the Justice Department to sue states over AI rules will only go after the most burdensome regulations. 

While he expressed uncertainty about whether the administration would seek to challenge California or New York, he singled out a law in Colorado seeking to prohibit algorithmic discrimination and tagged it “probably the most excessive.”

Trump resorted to the executive order because WHITE House officials and Republican lawmakers reportedly refused to include similar legislation preempting state AI laws in a must-pass defense bill earlier this month. 

The order calls for Sacks and other administration officials to work with Congress on legislation for a “minimally burdensome national standard.”

Unfortunately, it has come at a time when more state lawmakers have started expressing an eagerness to impose some rules of the road on the ever-growing AI sector. Experts foresee complications, as any state passing legislation would face potential conflict with the White House.

Join Bybit now and claim a $50 bonus in minutes