Trump and Johnson worry slowing down AI plays into China's hands

Republicans reject the expert brake citing security

Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson have questioned recent appeals from AI industry leaders. They were responding to an open letter from Anthropic's Dario Amodei, supported by Elon Musk, Sam Altman, and Google's Demis Hassabis, which asks for a slowdown at the frontier of model capabilities. According to the Financial Times, Trump clearly stated that America must not lose its lead over China because whoever wins in AI wins everything. According to Johnson, panic regulation by Congress could directly threaten national security.

National security becomes a shield against regulation

This stance shows how the political narrative is shifting. Slowing down is no longer seen as a responsibility to humanity, but as capitulation in a global arms race. For AI companies, it's a paradoxical situation: while they ask for guardrails themselves to maintain control over their own technology and deflect outside criticism, the political right is tearing down this regulatory shield by pointing to a foreign enemy.

China doesn't have the same moral brakes

The China argument is understandable but attacks a straw man. Those who want to slow down aren't saying the US should turn off its servers and walk away. They are talking about controlled testing. Removing all regulations in the name of the race will speed up deployment, but no one yet knows if the systems will break under pressure, whether on the American or Chinese side. Racing to build a safe airplane first makes sense. Racing to fly it first with an engine flaw, not so much.

Legislative reality after elections will dictate direction

It will be crucial to watch if this rhetoric survives in the actual committees that write laws. If Congress truly rejects any intervention citing national security, all responsibility for testing and braking will remain exclusively with the internal ethics teams of individual companies, without any external pressure to do so.

Lilith's verdict

When an industry begs for rules and politicians respond that regulation is treason, it's clear the argument is no longer about technology, but the campaign.