Trump Just Pledged to Let AI Companies Do Whatever They Want
Trump and the tech CEOs have a lot in common—not least their sense of total impunity.
From left: House Speaker Mike Johnson; President Donald Trump; Lisa Su, chair and CEO of Advanced Micro Devices; Nikesh Arora, CEO of Palo Alto Networks; and Elon Musk, chief executive officer of Tesla, during a September 29 White House meeting about artificial intelligenceTierney L. Cross/The Washington Post/Bloomberg/Getty ImagesFrom left: House Speaker Mike Johnson; President Donald Trump; Lisa Su, chair and CEO of Advanced Micro Devices; Nikesh Arora, CEO of Palo Alto Networks; and Elon Musk, chief executive officer of Tesla, during a September 29 White House meeting about artificial intelligenceShare This Story
Whatever beef Donald Trump had with Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei seems to have been buried. The two had dinner on Sunday, followed by a luncheon with other CEOs who then stood together with top Republicans outside the White House. Together, they announced a “morally binding” agreement about the governance of artificial intelligence, or “super intelligence,” as Trump has rebranded those companies’ products. While Amodei, Sam Altman, and Elon Musk had purportedly butted heads with the president in recent weeks over the idea of slowing down the launch of new and more capable large language models—the executives called to “pace the frontier”; Trump disagreed—they have reached a new understanding. “We all need to work together to make sure that we can win, and we can win safely,” Amodei said, before slinking awkwardly back into the high-net-worth clump of suits assembled behind him. “If we can do this right, work with the president and everyone here, we can win safely.” Trump summed up the principles of their 308-word agreement more succinctly: “tremendous self-regulation.”
Since Trump took office, pundits have marveled at the tech industry’s rightward shift. The recent explosion of discourse over “AI safety” has reenergized that conversation, as observers question how lib-coded ostensible true believers in regulation such as Amodei—who publicly fought with the White House over the terms of its defense contracts—could make peace so easily with the avatar of the reactionary right. Perhaps his wincing at Tuesday’s press conference betrayed some inner torment. But Amodei isn’t the only self-styled do-gooder to make nice with Trump. Just a few years ago, Mark Zuckerberg—who could barely contain his glee while standing next to the president—poured well-publicized millions into liberal causes. Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk cultivated their image as climate champions. It wasn’t so long ago that Sam Altman called Trump “unfit” to be president. “i guess the meme is that Dario is awkward, but it is kind of weird how eager the other CEOs are to participate in a public knee-bending ceremony like this,” tech journalist Kevin Roose marveled of Tuesday’s White House summit with Silicon Valley. “you’d hope more of them would be visibly uncomfortable!”
What explains the new coziness? The terms of the White House’s truce with tech leaders aren’t exactly mysterious. The same executives have showered Trump’s SuperPAC and pet projects with $227 million, the watchdog group Public Citizen notes. There are obvious benefits to having the administration’s enthusiastic support. But there’s more than just opportunism at work here. For as much as has been made of the cultural and ideological fissures between MAGA and Palo Alto, the two camps share a common quasi-religious faith that economic growth can solve virtually every problem known to man.
And although there are certainly weirder corners of the overlapping ideologies that buzz around Bay Area offices and polycules, even top “true believers” who’ve trafficked in rationalism and effective altruism have been steadfast about their belief in growth as a somewhat mysterious but ultimately positive force that promises untold fortunes to those who choose to feed it. Way back in 2013, Sam Altman wrote an essay making the case that rapid economic growth “is not only critical for startups, but for most systems. Either you’re growing, or you’re slowly dying.”
In the essay, Altman argued that attempts to mitigate the inequalities created by the twenty-first century’s biggest growth industries (“robots”) could easily backfire. “We should understand,” he continued, “that as a consequence of technology and an economy of ideas, the gap between the rich and the poor will likely increase from its already high-seeming levels. There is good and bad to this, but we should be careful not to legislate against it, which will hurt growth.”
This kind of cold supposed truth-telling isn’t exactly novel among founders. Scottish philosopher and effective altruism guru Will MacAskill famously counseled disgraced crypto executive Sam Bankman-Fried that the most effective way he could be altruistic was to make as much money as possible. The idea of “earning to give” is obviously compelling for people who would like to become wealthy, and those who see an opportunity to offer those people lucrative moral guidance. The idea has been something of a mainstay for effective altruists, who like to make up numbers to justify why fortunes that also flow to their pet causes, including “AI safety,” are sum-positive for the cause of building a more abundant world.
To find the origins of this kind of reasoning, you have to go way back. In 1889—at the height of the Gilded Age—industrialist Andrew Carnegie made the same case. “Not evil, but good, has come to the race from the accumulation of wealth by those who have the ability and energy that produce it,” Carnegie wrote in The Gospel of Wealth. That rich men had amassed such incredible fortunes testified to their “superior wisdom, experience, and ability to administer” those fortunes to worthy causes. That spirit of farsighted charity would be a cudgel against “Socialists and Anarchists” looking to upset what Carnegie saw as the natural order of things—the socialists and anarchists who also happened to be organizing at his mills. “The laws of accumulation will be left free; the laws of distribution free,” he wrote. “Individualism will continue, but the millionaire will be but a trustee for the poor; entrusted for a season with a great part of the increased wealth of the community, but administering it for the community far better than it could or would have done for itself.”
Preachers of today’s newfangled Gospel of Wealth ascribe utopian potential to the stuff that’s making them rich too. Pressed to articulate the benefits of artificial intelligence—and not just its catastrophic risks—Amodei’s core argument has been that large language models will deliver not only technological breakthroughs but riches fantastical enough to save the world and solve its most intractable problems. In his long blog post last month about pacing the frontier, Amodei argued that his industry’s products “could cure most major diseases in the next 5–10 years, greatly accelerate economic growth rates, create a world of abundance and empowerment, and usher in a renaissance of democracy and freedom.” His “dream scenario—perhaps a goal to aim for—would be 20% annual GDP growth rate in the developing world, with 10% each coming from AI-enabled economic decisions and the natural spread of AI-accelerated technologies.”
On Tuesday, Trump echoed Amodei’s excitement about LLMs’ capacity to deliver “unbelievable growth.” Faced with rising inflation, mortgage rates, and sprawling blowback from an unpopular, illegal, and expensive war on Iran, Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have both been adamant that the United States can simply grow its way through economic headwinds. That faith rests in large part on the men who gathered outside of the White House on Tuesday. Investments tied to the building binge on chips and data centers have accounted for about 20 percent of America’s economic growth this year. Frothy valuations continue to buoy the stock market and, with it, the fortunes of the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans, who are responsible for nearly half of all consumer spending. As eager as Silicon Valley executives are to stay on Trump’s good side, Trump wants to keep them happy too—and to appease voters angry about the risks of data centers and artificial intelligence alike.
Trump and Silicon Valley executives, however, seem to share another core belief that helps inform this week’s “self-policing” spectacle: impunity. Given the steady drumbeat of headlines about OpenAI agents hacking into companies, nonprofits, and government agencies, it isn’t hard to imagine why self-policing is preferable to the alternatives. Altman’s 2013 ode to the powers of growth ends with some suggestions for how to increase growth, including reforming tort laws that can be used to try companies for reckless and negligent behavior. Altman writes that “legal protection is of course important, but it’s gotten so silly that it discourages innovation.” As former Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan wrote this week, an unenforceable pledge is certainly preferable to being held accountable under the many laws that already exist to punish corporate wrongdoing. There’s a chance that could happen; Khan’s successor this week announced that the FTC was investigating Anthropic, OpenAI, and other unnamed companies over the potential dangers posed by their products.
Another, potentially more likely, outcome is that Trump loyalists at the FTC clear those companies of any wrongdoing. Trump, for his part, seems to believe that holding companies to existing laws and regulations—much less creating any new laws and regulations—would threaten the AI boom. The people getting rich off it are inclined to agree.
NO SURRENDER — Ilhan Omar Fires Back at Donald Trump After Federal Agents Search Her Home
Ilhan Omar is refusing to back down after federal agents searched her Washington, D.C., home in a criminal investigation—an extraordinary development that has reignited her long-running confrontation with Donald Trump just weeks before the midterm elections.
The Minnesota Democrat responded with a defiant message: “I will not be silenced.” She accused the Trump administration of using federal law enforcement to target political opponents and described the search as another escalation in what she called a decade-long campaign of intimidation.
The statement immediately raised the political stakes. Omar is not simply disputing the circumstances surrounding the search; she is challenging the administration’s conduct and demanding that the public examine why federal agents took such a consequential step so close to an election.
But the central questions remain unresolved: What exactly are investigators looking for, what evidence supports the inquiry, and will the search trigger a broader confrontation between congressional Democrats and the Trump administration?
‘I Will Not Be Silenced’: Omar’s Defiant Response
On October 12, after news of the search emerged, Omar posted a response on social media that began with a brief reassurance: “I’m ok.”
She then delivered a much sharper political message, accusing the administration of targeting political enemies and weaponizing federal law enforcement.
“For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns,” Omar wrote, describing the search as the latest escalation in what she characterized as political intimidation. She ended with a declaration that quickly became the defining line of her response: “I will not be silenced.”
Her congressional office issued a separate statement calling the search an “outrageous abuse of power” and an “unprecedented escalation” in the use of federal law enforcement against political opponents. The statement said Omar had done nothing wrong and argued that no president should be able to use the federal government to intimidate political adversaries.
Those are Omar’s allegations and her office’s position. The search itself was carried out under a judicially authorized warrant, according to the Justice Department. Whether investigators uncover evidence of wrongdoing—and whether the search was justified by the facts of the case—remains to be established.
What Happened at Omar’s Washington Home?
Federal agents with Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, searched Omar’s Washington residence early Monday, October 12.
The Justice Department confirmed that agents executed a search warrant authorized by a court as part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation. Officials did not publicly disclose a complete account of the evidence being sought or all the details of the inquiry.
Reporting by CBS News and The Washington Post indicated that investigators were examining immigration paperwork dating back to Omar’s childhood. The documents reportedly involved paperwork completed by her late father when the family came to the United States as refugees from Somalia.
The details remain limited, and the reported focus of the investigation should not be confused with a finding of guilt. A search warrant authorizes investigators to look for specified evidence; it does not establish that the person whose home is searched committed a crime.
Omar has repeatedly rejected allegations against her and portrayed the renewed scrutiny as politically motivated. Her office’s statement following the search reiterated that she had done nothing wrong.
As of the latest reports, authorities had not publicly laid out a complete evidentiary case against the congresswoman. That leaves a critical distinction at the center of the story: the investigation is real, but its ultimate findings are not yet known.
Why the Timing Has Become a Political Flashpoint
The search took place less than a month before the November midterm elections, when control of Congress is at stake. That timing has intensified questions from Democrats about whether the action could influence the political environment surrounding Omar’s reelection campaign.
House Judiciary Committee Democrats raised concerns about the search, while senior Democratic leaders condemned the action and questioned the use of federal power against a sitting member of Congress so close to an election.
The criticism centers on more than Omar’s personal dispute with Trump. It touches on a broader principle: federal law enforcement must be able to investigate potential crimes, but its decisions should be grounded in evidence and applied without improper political influence.
The Justice Department has confirmed the existence of a court-authorized search but has not publicly provided a full explanation of the investigative rationale. Without that information, it is not possible to establish from the public record alone whether the timing was politically motivated or driven by investigative necessities.
That uncertainty is likely to keep the controversy alive. Democrats are demanding answers about the decision and its timing, while the investigation itself remains ongoing.
A Long-Running Clash Between Omar and Trump
Omar has been one of Trump’s most prominent congressional critics. Their political conflict has repeatedly drawn national attention, with disputes involving immigration, national identity, federal enforcement and the congresswoman’s background.
Trump has frequently criticized Omar in public, while Omar has accused him of spreading false claims and using inflammatory rhetoric against her and the Somali American community.
In the days before the search, Omar had also criticized Trump’s rhetoric about Somali Americans. The latest federal action therefore arrived against the backdrop of an already bitter political relationship—not in isolation.
Still, a history of public hostility does not by itself prove that a federal investigation was politically directed. Establishing improper interference would require evidence about how the investigation was initiated, authorized and conducted.
That distinction matters because the controversy involves two separate questions: whether investigators have a legitimate basis to pursue the case, and whether the administration has handled the matter in a politically appropriate way.
Both questions deserve scrutiny, but neither should be treated as settled before the relevant evidence is available.
Democrats Demand Answers as the Investigation Continues
Omar’s response has been echoed by Democratic colleagues who say the search raises serious concerns about the use of federal power. Some have called for accountability and greater transparency about the investigation.
Their criticism is also shaped by the election calendar. A federal search involving a sitting member of Congress in the final weeks before voters head to the polls is certain to draw heightened political attention, even when authorities have a judicial warrant.
The administration’s position and the investigators’ evidence will be crucial to determining how the controversy develops. If officials disclose a clear evidentiary basis for the search, that information will help the public evaluate the government’s actions. If significant questions remain unanswered, pressure for congressional oversight may intensify.
For now, the public has only a partial picture of the investigation. Officials have confirmed a court-authorized search, but have not disclosed all the evidence or publicly established that Omar committed a crime.
What Happens Next for Ilhan Omar?
The immediate questions are whether investigators will release additional information, whether Omar or her representatives will provide further details, and whether congressional leaders will seek formal oversight of the search.
Omar has made her own position unmistakable: she intends to continue speaking out and views the search as an attempt to intimidate a political opponent. The Trump administration’s critics have embraced that interpretation, while the legal justification for the search must ultimately be evaluated through the evidence and applicable law.
The coming days could bring more details about the investigation, new statements from lawmakers and further debate over the role of federal law enforcement during an election season.
For now, the most defensible conclusion is also the most consequential: a federal search has triggered a major political confrontation, Omar has publicly challenged the administration’s motives, and key questions about the investigation remain unanswered.
Her “I will not be silenced” declaration has become a rallying cry for her response. Whether the dispute grows into a wider congressional battle will depend on what investigators reveal next—and whether the government can explain its actions in a way that withstands public and legal scrutiny.
