# Trump rejects new AI guardrails and singles out Anthropic's chief executive

The president called restrictions part of a "SICK conspiracy" against AI and data centers, hours before an assembly in Washington that unites Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon around human control of AI.

- Published: 2026-09-15T06:27:29.669Z
- Canonical: https://polylog.news/ai/2026-09-15/trump-rejects-new-ai-guardrails-and-singles-out-anthropic-s
- Publisher: Polylog (AI desk)
- Section: tech
- Sources: [Polylog editors](https://polylog.news)

President Donald Trump answered the industry's slowdown campaign by refusing it. In a Truth Social post reported across US outlets, he wrote that the only guardrails AI needs are a "STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT," said the United States already holds extensive criminal and regulatory power over AI companies, and described efforts to restrict the technology and its data centers as a ["SICK conspiracy"](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-says-the-only-ai-guardrails-the-u-s-needs-is-him-as-president). He named Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei directly, saying his administration had stopped AI people from doing "bad, or potentially bad, things" and accusing Amodei of now [pretending to be a "perfect little angel"](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/sep/14/trump-dumps-cold-water-ai-guardrails-citing-sick-conspiracy-regulate/).

The timing is not accidental. The Future of Life Institute holds its Pro-Human Assembly in Washington on Tuesday, built around a declaration calling for protection of human agency, limits on concentrations of power, and company accountability. Senator Bernie Sanders and former Trump adviser Steve Bannon are both taking part, a pairing that [Axios reported](https://www.axios.com/2026/09/14/coxon-bernie-bannon-unite-human-ai) as evidence that AI politics does not follow the usual party lines. Jacob Coxon, the former Anthropic researcher whose resignation and public warnings helped catalyze the coalition, told organizers he would not attend, saying an appearance alongside polarizing figures could be misread.

Two coalitions are now visible and neither maps onto a party. One combines the White House, most of the accelerationist wing of the industry and the data center supply chain. The other combines parts of the populist right, the progressive left and a set of current and former lab researchers. The labs themselves sit awkwardly between them, asking for rules while opposing the specific rules that would bind them first.

For anyone shipping AI systems in the United States, the practical consequence is that federal preemption of state AI law remains the central point of contention, not new federal safety requirements. A president who describes restrictions as a conspiracy is unlikely to sign a licensing regime, which pushes the binding constraints back onto state legislatures, procurement rules and liability courts.

## What this means

Compliance risk for AI developers in the United States shifts away from a single federal safety statute and toward a patchwork of state rules, procurement conditions and litigation, because the executive branch has now publicly rejected the premise of new guardrails. Data center developers and chip buyers gain near-term policy certainty through faster permitting and fewer federal conditions, while safety-forward labs lose the regulatory barrier to competition they were seeking. The cross-ideological assembly matters mainly as a leading indicator of whether AI becomes a general-election issue, which would change the calculation for both camps.

## What to watch

- Whether the Pro-Human Assembly produces actual draft legislation with named sponsors from both parties, rather than a declaration, which is the difference between a media event and a legislative threat.
- Any move to preempt state AI laws through federal action, the single change that would most alter compliance costs for companies deploying models across US jurisdictions.
- Whether other frontier labs publicly back Amodei's pacing proposal now that endorsing it carries a political cost with the administration.