Far‑right groups rally against Trump’s AI czar David Sacks in Washington
The far‑right’s push against David Sacks has taken on a surprisingly procedural tone. While protest signs line the steps of the Capitol and online forums buzz with accusations, a quieter battle is unfolding inside the corridors of power. Republican operatives, think‑tank scholars and a handful of legal advisers have been swapping notes, not just about messaging but about the mechanics of policy.
Their goal isn’t merely to oust a tech appointee; it’s to shape the next move the administration makes on artificial‑intelligence regulation. In a climate where every tweet can shift public perception, the question becomes whether the White House can be nudged toward a rapid, sweeping pause on AI development. That’s why the following glimpse into the behind‑the‑scenes lobbying matters: it reveals who is trying to convince the president that a swift, aggressive moratorium might be the only viable path forward.
*Behind the scenes, AI policy experts, lawyers, and politcal operatives -- regardless of whether they were pro-preemption or not -- were working their connections in the White House, hoping that someone could persuade Trump that a moratorium -- at least, one that was so swift and aggressive -- would*
Behind the scenes, AI policy experts, lawyers, and politcal operatives -- regardless of whether they were pro-preemption or not -- were working their connections in the White House, hoping that someone could persuade Trump that a moratorium -- at least, one that was so swift and aggressive -- would be political suicide. Two people familiar with the dynamics of the White House said that the person most likely to succeed at stopping Trump at signing the EO was Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff who'd successfully imposed a sense of discipline on Trump's political operations, is deeply trusted by Trump, and is famously averse to internal drama. "She's smart," said a Republican operative working on AI policy.
"I think she understands how this could be bad for the president, politically." Recent polling indicates that a vast, bipartisan majority of Americans oppose the idea of a state AI law moratorium. And few demographics are more hostile to the idea than the Republican MAGA base, who have long distrusted Big Tech and view AI as a threat to job security, traditional family values, and the mental health of their children. Backing a moratorium would be disastrous for potential Republican presidential candidates aligned with the MAGA base, such as Vice President J.D.
Recent elections across the country indicate that the Republican Party already finds itself on tenuous footing: last month, New Yorkers soundly elected Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani over the Trump-backed Andrew Cuomo for mayor; meanwhile, Virginians elected Democrat Abigail Spanberger to the House over Republican Winsome Earl-Sears by a landslide.
The far‑right’s pushback against David Sacks underscores how quickly the AI debate can become politicized. Short‑lived rumors that Trump will sign an order allowing the federal government to penalize states for their own AI statutes have already sparked organized resistance, even as Congress chose not to embed a state‑ban provision in the NDAA. Behind the scenes, policy experts, lawyers and operatives—some supportive of pre‑emption, others not—have been lobbying White House contacts, hoping to convince the president that a swift, aggressive moratorium might be preferable.
Whether such an executive order will materialise, and what legal mechanisms it would employ, remains unclear. If it does, the question of enforcement looms: can the federal government realistically punish states, and how would that intersect with existing jurisdictional norms? The emerging clash between activist groups and the administration illustrates the tension between rapid regulatory action and the broader, still‑unevaluated implications for state autonomy.
Uncertainty persists about the final shape of any pre‑emptive AI framework.
Further Reading
- Papers with Code - Latest NLP Research - Papers with Code
- Hugging Face Daily Papers - Hugging Face
- ArXiv CS.CL (Computation and Language) - ArXiv
More in Policy & Regulation
OpenAI drops 'cameo' label from Sora app after legal action, called 'characters
OpenAI’s Sora app has found itself in a naming dispute that forced a quick UI tweak.
OpenAI, Microsoft sued for scraping newspapers and using text without license
A wave of legal challenges is converging on two of the most visible AI players, accusing them of...
OpenAI releases gpt-oss-120B and gpt-oss-20B under Apache-2.0-style license
For years the AI world has been tugging at a knot: big companies push ever-larger models, yet they...
Qlik: Nearly half of Indian firms see data quality, governance as AI bottlenecks
India’s rush to embed AI across finance, manufacturing and services is already hitting a familiar...
Das says affordable compute and national datasets will cut BFSI cycles to weeks
When a bank’s product team finally rolls out a new risk model, the process often feels like waiting...
Common Questions Answered
What specific strategy are far‑right groups using to oppose AI czar David Sacks in Washington?
They are combining public protests on the Capitol steps with behind‑the‑scenes lobbying of White House officials, aiming to persuade President Trump to issue a swift AI moratorium that they argue would be politically damaging if signed. This dual approach seeks both visible pressure and procedural influence to block Sacks’s appointment.
How is Susie Wiles expected to influence President Trump's decision on the AI executive order concerning David Sacks?
According to two White House insiders, Susie Wiles—Trump’s senior adviser—has the strongest personal connection to the president and could convince him that signing an aggressive AI moratorium would be political suicide, potentially halting the executive order that would empower Sacks. Her role underscores the importance of personal networks in shaping AI policy outcomes.
What does the article say about the rumored executive order that would allow the federal government to penalize states with their own AI statutes?
The piece notes that rumors of such an order have already triggered organized resistance from far‑right activists, even though Congress deliberately omitted a state‑ban provision from the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This reflects the tension between federal pre‑emption efforts and state‑level AI regulation.
In what ways are Republican operatives and think‑tank scholars differing on AI pre‑emption according to the article?
While some Republican operatives and think‑tank scholars support pre‑empting state AI laws to create a uniform national framework, others caution that aggressive pre‑emption could backfire politically, advocating instead for a more measured approach. Their internal debate highlights the procedural complexity behind the far‑right’s broader anti‑Sacks campaign.