Vice President Vance: AI Slowdown Call is a Trojan Horse
U.S. Vice President Vance expressed on Monday (September 14) during a press interaction in Washington that he finds it "somewhat strange" that executives from several AI companies have suddenly called for a slowdown in AI development, and he believes these calls "feel a bit like a Trojan horse."
Vance stated, "AI clearly has risks, but it also has benefits. Honestly, I find it a bit strange that so many cutting-edge AI tech companies are running to the government, asking for government regulation of themselves." He added, "This makes me feel a bit like a Trojan horse, so I think we need to be vigilant about this."
Vance emphasized that the U.S. government is indeed concerned about the related risks, "but we want to ensure that regulation is done properly and wisely." He stated that any technology carries risks, but the U.S. needs to maintain its leading position in the AI field while controlling risks, especially to prevent falling behind in AI competition with China, and he called for bipartisan consensus in Congress and the White House on the regulatory framework.
Vance's remarks are highly consistent with his previous stance—back in February 2025, he publicly criticized strict European-style regulation at the Paris AI Summit, stating that "the future of AI will not be won by worrying about safety issues, but by practical efforts," and warned that "restricting AI development now will not only unfairly benefit incumbent giants but will also paralyze one of the most promising technologies." He now applies the same logic of "regulatory benefits for incumbents" to question the motives of leading labs like Anthropic and OpenAI that are calling for self-regulation.
Vance's statements align with former President Trump's position—Trump has repeatedly stated that the U.S. must maintain its lead in the AI race and has explicitly placed the priority of AI safety under "ensuring that America does not fall behind China." Previously, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei had publicly called for the industry to slow down the pace of cutting-edge AI development, and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and others have also expressed concerns about related risks. This collective statement from CEOs has led to a significant drop in AI-related stocks.
Vance reinterprets the "leading AI companies' proactive requests for regulation" as a potential competitive strategy—namely, to consolidate their position and exclude newcomers and smaller competitors by raising compliance thresholds. This judgment objectively resonates with previous statements from several White House officials (such as David Sacks' comment that "the slowdown coalition is a cartel dressed in virtue"). For the market, the administration's continuous signals that "it will not easily adopt calls for a slowdown, and the regulatory framework will remain loose" help stabilize investor expectations for continued capital expenditure in chip stocks and AI infrastructure.
ABAB AI Insight
Vance's skepticism about AI regulation is not a new stance—back in February 2025 at the Paris AI Summit, he publicly opposed strict EU-style regulation, advocating that "the future of AI should be won through practical efforts rather than worrying about safety," and warned that strict regulation would "unfairly benefit incumbent giants." This time, he has turned his attention to the AI companies that are actively calling for regulation, maintaining a consistent logic—only this time, the targets suspected of "using regulation to consolidate advantages" have shifted from European regulators to leaders of U.S.-based AI labs like Amodei and Altman.
Vance's remarks essentially label the "slowdown coalition" as a "vested interest group"—if this judgment is accepted by the market and policymakers, any future mandatory safety legislation targeting AI could be redefined as a means for leading companies to exclude competitors, thereby undermining its political legitimacy. This also explains why the White House chose to quickly respond with public statements from both the President and Vice President to counter the narrative of "slowdown" after AI stocks plummeted due to the CEOs' collective call for a slowdown, attempting to prevent the further spread of the "slowdown narrative" and its impact on capital expenditure expectations.
Vance's assertion that "regulation is a Trojan horse" aligns with previous accusations from White House AI policy officials like David Sacks, who called the slowdown coalition a "cartel dressed in virtue," and investor Michael Burry's concerns that "leading players suppress smaller competitors in the name of safety." Together, these form a unified counter-narrative in U.S. politics regarding "calls for AI safety." This narrative has historical prototypes in regulatory battles in industries like finance and pharmaceuticals—where incumbents embrace regulation to raise industry entry barriers is a well-validated competitive strategy. Vance's statement directly imports this cognitive framework into the AI policy debate.
This is essentially a discourse battle over the ownership of regulatory authority—when the demand for "AI safety" can simultaneously serve both public interest and the competitive interests of leading companies, whoever can label the other's motives first ("genuine concern" or "cartel tool") will gain the upper hand in the subsequent political legitimacy struggle over regulatory legislation. Vance's choice to use the metaphor of "Trojan horse," which carries a strong warning connotation, essentially lays the groundwork for justifying the federal-level rejection of mandatory slowdown or safety legislation, establishing a basis for legitimacy in public opinion and morality.
ABAB News · Cognitive Law
- Companies that proactively seek regulation often know best what regulation is most beneficial to them.
- A single phrase "Trojan horse" can turn safety demands into conspiracy theories.
- Whoever defines the other's motives first wins this policy debate.