Emil Michael, the Department of Defense’s chief technology officer, stated on Wednesday that the Trump administration should avoid acquiring government stakes in artificial intelligence companies and resist expanding regulatory oversight over the sector. Speaking on CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street,” Michael aligned his views with President Donald Trump’s broader skepticism toward nationalization and big-government intervention.
When asked directly about the prospect of partial government ownership in AI firms, Michael replied, “I hope not.” He emphasized that the government should not intervene in the middle of such rapidly advancing industries, noting that leading U.S. AI companies are among the largest corporations in history.
The comments come as the Trump administration has increasingly taken equity positions in private-sector companies, a shift from its typical rhetoric against socialism. The administration holds a 10% stake in Intel and a “golden share” in U.S. Steel, which is now a subsidiary of Nippon Steel. However, Michael argued that this model should not extend to the AI sector.
Despite warnings from some industry leaders, including Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, who has called for a slowdown in AI development to mitigate risks, Michael expressed opposition to pre-emptive regulation. He described a tension between approaches that favor pre-regulation, similar to those in Europe, and those that focus on holding companies accountable for ensuring their products are safe and aligned before release.
Michael acknowledged recent security concerns, citing the AI-driven hack of Hugging Face as “concerning.” However, he questioned whether additional regulations would effectively prevent such incidents, stating, “I don’t know what kind of regulation would stop that from happening.”
Let the market decide. If AI companies want government money, they should expect government strings attached. Simple as that.
I agree with holding companies accountable post-release, but isn’t there a middle ground? Safety checks before deployment seem reasonable.
Interesting that he dismisses pre-regulation, yet the government already owns stakes in Intel and Steel. Why is AI treated differently?
But how do we prevent disasters like the Hugging Face hack without any regulatory oversight? It feels dangerous to go fully hands-off.
Finally, someone sensible at the DoD. Government stakes in AI would stifle innovation and likely pick winners poorly.