Trump and Mike Johnson think the AI industry is overreacting
Sep 13, 2026, 12:41 PM · The Verge

Trump and Speaker Johnson brush off Amodei’s pacing push as panic—arguing a slowdown risks handing China the AI lead.
Why it matters
While Anthropic’s Dario Amodei called for pacing the frontier—and Altman, Musk, and even a tentative Demis Hassabis nodded along—Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson are staking the opposite political frame: the industry is overreacting, and rushing restrictions could be a national security own-goal.
According to the Financial Times, Trump said the U.S. is leading China in AI and he intends to keep it that way, “because whoever wins AI, wins.” Johnson told Jake Tapper on CNN that racing into emergency AI regulation could itself be a national security threat and urged people not to panic.
From the desk
We’re covering the political veto threat sitting next to the CEO chorus.
Lab leaders spent the weekend arguing that recursive improvement and agent mishaps justify deliberate slowdown. Washington’s Republican leadership is answering with a race frame: China first, regulation later—if at all. Those two stories collide immediately. Amodei’s own plan already paired democratic pacing with harder chip controls abroad; Trump and Johnson are essentially saying the domestic brake is the bigger risk.
We’re for useful AI that stays under human control. We’re also not naive about geopolitics—capability leadership matters. The harm if the political frame wins outright is safety work treated as panic, third-party evaluators delayed, and “don’t lose to China” used to rubber-stamp every release. The harm if labs ignore the China argument is a one-sided slowdown that adversaries don’t match. Both failure modes are live.
This Verge piece is short and sharp: it doesn’t adjudicate METR’s incident record or Amodei’s six-to-twelve-month botnet window. It establishes that the pacing coalition does not have the White House or the House speakership onboard. That matters more for what Congress does next week than for what METR finds in a lab.
I’m watching whether any narrow evaluator or reporting mandates can survive a China-race veto—or whether the political center of gravity stays “full speed.”
Context
The story sits one day after Amodei’s open letter and the wave of industry endorsements. Alphabet’s Demis Hassabis is noted as offering tentative support for Amodei’s proposal. Primary political quotes are attributed via Financial Times and CNN.
Who feels it
- U.S. Congress and agencies
- Emergency-session regulation is explicitly framed as a losing move; expect resistance to fast statutory pacing requirements.
- Frontier labs seeking government cover for coordination
- Antitrust waivers and mandated evaluators face a harder sell if leadership calls the premise overreaction.
- China-focused national security community
- The “whoever wins AI, wins” line reinforces export-control and compute-lead arguments over domestic slowdown.
What to watch
- Whether any bipartisan evaluator or incident-reporting bills advance despite the overreaction frame.
- Follow-up comments from Trump or Johnson as more labs publish pacing commitments.
- How labs adjust public messaging when White House alignment is clearly race-first.