By Lina Irawan 
Former President Donald Trump, signaling a distinct approach to the burgeoning field of artificial intelligence, announced on Saturday his intention to establish an "AI Force," drawing parallels to the creation of the Space Force during his first term. This declaration, made via his Truth Social platform, suggested a potential law enforcement or oversight role for the new entity, even as he simultaneously dismissed calls for slowing AI development as "hoaxes" and pledged unwavering support for the industry’s growth. Trump’s vision positions the United States at the forefront of AI innovation, emphasizing economic prosperity and national security, while largely downplaying the existential risks that have recently prompted leading AI developers to advocate for a more cautious pace.
In his online remarks, Trump underscored his belief in the transformative potential of AI, predicting it could eventually constitute as much as 25% of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), surpassing the impact of the internet. "We will not in any way hinder or stifle the Growth of this incredible Industry," Trump posted, "Rather, we will cherish it, help it, and watch over it, as it grows!" This stance marks a significant departure from the increasingly vocal concerns within the scientific community and even among some AI industry titans regarding the rapid, unregulated advancement of artificial general intelligence (AGI) and superintelligence.
Beyond the "AI Force," Trump also committed to appointing an "AI czar" to spearhead his administration’s efforts in the sector. This isn’t the first time such a role has been considered within his orbit; investor David Sacks had reportedly served as an AI and crypto czar earlier in what would have been a hypothetical second term, before stepping down to co-chair the president’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. The appointment of a czar typically signifies a high-level, dedicated focus on a particular policy area, offering centralized authority and coordination that a fragmented federal bureaucracy might otherwise lack. The scope of such a czar’s power, from influencing research priorities to shaping regulatory frameworks, would be a critical determinant of their effectiveness.
Trump’s "cherish it, help it, and watch over it" mantra encapsulates a pro-innovation, light-touch regulatory philosophy. He suggested that any "bad behavior" emerging from AI development could be adequately handled by the existing criminal and civil justice system. This perspective, however, faces scrutiny from experts who argue that current legal frameworks are ill-equipped to address the novel challenges posed by AI, such as algorithmic bias, autonomous decision-making, deepfake proliferation, or the complex issues of liability in the event of AI-driven harm. The legal landscape for AI is still largely undefined, with many proposing new legislation or specialized regulatory bodies rather than relying on existing, often outdated, statutes.
The former president also touched upon the growing backlash against data centers, which have become a surprising focal point in recent midterm elections. These facilities, essential infrastructure for AI, consume vast amounts of energy and water, leading to local opposition over environmental concerns, resource strain, and land use. Trump claimed this backlash had "largely failed," though specific instances of community resistance and regulatory hurdles suggest a more complex picture. For instance, communities in states like Virginia and Arizona have actively pushed back against new data center developments, citing strain on local grids and water supplies, highlighting a tension between technological advancement and local environmental and infrastructural capacities.
The announcement of an "AI Force" draws a direct parallel to the U.S. Space Force, established in 2019 as the first new branch of the military in over 70 years. The Space Force was created to organize, train, and equip forces to protect U.S. interests in space, recognizing space as a vital domain for national security. A similar "AI Force," if modeled on this precedent, could involve specialized personnel trained in AI ethics, cybersecurity, forensic analysis of AI systems, and potentially even the deployment of AI in national defense or intelligence operations. However, the exact "law enforcement role" hinted at remains vague, raising questions about jurisdiction, technical expertise, and potential overlap with existing agencies like the FBI, NSA, or even the Department of Justice’s emerging AI-focused units. Would it investigate AI-powered financial fraud, combat deepfake disinformation campaigns, or monitor the development of autonomous weapons systems? The practical implementation would be a monumental undertaking, requiring significant funding, talent acquisition, and clear legislative mandates.
Trump’s optimistic forecast of AI contributing 25% to U.S. GDP within a relatively short timeframe, and its potential to eclipse the internet’s impact, aligns with some of the more bullish projections from financial analysts and technology evangelists. For context, the internet and related digital economy currently contribute a significant, but not 25%, share to global GDP. Consulting firms like McKinsey have projected AI could add trillions to the global economy over the next decade, while PwC estimates AI could boost global GDP by up to 14% by 2030. Such predictions often hinge on widespread adoption, significant investment, and the successful integration of AI across various industries, from healthcare and manufacturing to finance and logistics. The comparison to the internet highlights AI’s potential as a general-purpose technology, capable of fundamentally reshaping economies and societies.
Crucially, Trump emphasized maintaining America’s lead over China and the rest of the world in AI. The geopolitical race for AI supremacy is a defining feature of 21st-century international relations. Both the U.S. and China are investing heavily in AI research, development, and deployment, viewing it as critical for economic competitiveness, military advantage, and global influence. While the U.S. currently boasts a strong lead in foundational AI research, talent, and venture capital, China’s centralized government planning, vast data resources, and rapid commercialization efforts pose a formidable challenge. Trump’s assertion reflects a broader bipartisan consensus in Washington that U.S. dominance in AI is paramount for national security and economic prosperity.
Trump’s announcement comes at a pivotal moment, just a week after some of the AI industry’s most influential figures coalesced around an unprecedented agreement to "throttle back" the breakneck speed of AI development. This collective call for caution was spurred by increasingly dire warnings about the technology’s potential consequences, including existential risks to humanity. Leaders like Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, SpaceXAI CEO Elon Musk, and Google DeepMind co-founder Demis Hassabis have publicly voiced concerns, signaling a shift in industry sentiment from unbridled acceleration to a more measured, safety-first approach.
Last Saturday, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei announced his company’s commitment to a new safety measure: granting independent evaluators permanent, employee-level access inside the company. This radical transparency initiative is part of a broader plan he believes is essential to slow the pace of AI development and ensure responsible innovation. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, in an exclusive interview with Fortune, hinted that his company and other leading AI labs might be close to announcing a formal pact to collectively address rapidly increasing safety risks. These moves reflect a growing consensus among top researchers that the current pace of AI advancement could outstrip humanity’s ability to control or even comprehend its most powerful iterations.
The urgency of these concerns was amplified by the public resignation of Jacob Coxon, a researcher who had previously worked at both Anthropic and OpenAI. In a scathing post on X, Coxon accused both companies of acting irresponsibly, asserting, "They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives." His dramatic departure brought into sharp relief the internal ethical struggles within leading AI labs. Evan Hubinger, Anthropic’s "alignment science lead," subsequently commented on Coxon’s post, chillingly confirming that many researchers within Anthropic and OpenAI "really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!" This statement from a leader in "AI alignment"—a field dedicated to ensuring AI systems operate in accordance with human values and intentions—underscores the profound anxieties held by those closest to the technology. The scenarios for such an outcome range from unintended consequences of misaligned superintelligence to AI systems pursuing goals that inadvertently or intentionally harm humanity.
These industry-led efforts toward self-regulation, however, have not been universally welcomed. While Trump dismisses calls for caution as "hoaxes," another challenge has emerged from a different quarter: an antitrust lawsuit. Filed last Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the lawsuit alleges that the coordinated slowdown efforts by AI companies like Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI, and Google DeepMind violate antitrust laws. The plaintiffs contend that by agreeing to collectively decelerate development, these companies are essentially forming a cartel, reducing competition, and thereby diminishing the value of the AI subscriptions consumers have already paid for.
Nick Rowley, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, articulated a nuanced position: while they are not against the federal government developing AI regulation or granting an antitrust exemption, they staunchly oppose private, self-serving agreements among powerful "for profit" technology companies controlling AI safety and protocol. Rowley warned, "AI will quickly spin out of human control and could kill us all if we allow AI safety and protocol… to be controlled by private self-serving agreements between the world’s most powerful ‘for profit’ technology companies." This legal challenge introduces another layer of complexity to the AI governance debate, pitting concerns over market competition against the urgent imperative for safety.
The federal government itself has shown a divided and often contradictory approach to AI regulation. The Commerce Department, for instance, temporarily imposed export restrictions on Anthropic’s most advanced models, citing national security concerns related to dual-use technologies. Separately, the Defense Department sought to blacklist Anthropic by labeling it a supply-chain risk, though this action was later ruled illegal by a judge, highlighting the nascent and often inconsistent application of existing regulations to cutting-edge AI. These actions reveal a fragmented federal response, underscoring the potential need for a unified strategy, which Trump’s proposed "AI czar" and "AI Force" might aim to provide, albeit with a focus on promotion rather than strict regulation.
In essence, Donald Trump’s announcement sets the stage for a dramatic policy clash. On one side is a vision of unbridled innovation, economic supremacy, and a streamlined regulatory approach through a new "AI Force" and "AI czar." On the other side is a growing chorus of AI experts, industry leaders, and legal challengers demanding caution, ethical development, and robust, government-led oversight to mitigate potentially catastrophic risks. The future trajectory of AI in the United States, and indeed globally, will depend heavily on which of these starkly different visions ultimately prevails.
