Donald Trump: The U.S. is significantly ahead in superintelligence, which may be bigger than the Industrial Revolution
U.S. President Donald Trump stated to reporters that the U.S. is significantly ahead in superintelligence, which may be bigger than the Industrial Revolution, and claimed that those present might be the smartest group of people in the world. This statement was made during a lunch at the White House with tech executives and coincided with the release of the same agenda by America.gov.
On that day, he signed a voluntary "White House Superintelligence Agreement" with Elon Musk, Jensen Huang, Mark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai, Satya Nadella, Jeff Bezos, Dario Amodei from Anthropic, and Greg Brockman from OpenAI, describing it as "morally binding" and advocating for industry self-regulation, with the Department of Justice and the FBI as emergency backups. The government document also changed its terminology to refer to superintelligence.
He also endorsed America.gov, stating that anyone who has used Grok, Gemini, or ChatGPT can immediately get started, and signed an executive order requiring federal agencies to connect through a single entry point. The event was attended by the Vice President, Rubio, Gebbia, as well as Huang and Musk. The main policy line is to not slow down training and not to legislate immediate constraints, using a leading narrative to cover safety concerns.
He used the Industrial Revolution as a scale anchor, aiming to shift the regulatory debate from risk control to competition speed. The leading target implicitly points to China and other laboratories. In the same week, the U.S. and China just established a dialogue channel on superintelligence to discuss incident communication, while the White House still demands that companies maintain dominance.
In market mechanisms, this is a verbal intervention by the president on risk premiums. Buyers are U.S. laboratories and chip manufacturers hoping to avoid statutory pre-review, while sellers are the White House using political endorsement in exchange for self-auditing. Funds continue to stay in data centers and model training, benefiting Nvidia, cloud vendors, and contracted laboratories; those advocating for mandatory slowdowns and potential licensing schemes are under pressure. The event is strongly driven, but its implementation still depends on whether the voluntary agreement can withstand congressional legislation.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
Trump uses naming rights as a policy tool: first promoting the term "superintelligence" at the UN, then having companies sign for self-regulation at the White House lunch. The change in terminology is not a semantic game, but shifts the regulatory focus from "artificial, replaceable" to "super, must lead." Sitting next to him are the actual controllers of computing power, models, and platforms, and the "smartest people" he refers to point to this table, not the research community. The June executive order has already compressed the pre-review window to about 30 days and maintained it as voluntary, and today he uses the scale of the Industrial Revolution to push back legislative demands.
The capital path is political insurance covering capital expenditures. When data centers face local obstacles and Congress seeks stricter rules, the president uses "significantly ahead" to provide a narrative hedge for training budgets. The internal controls, external audits, and board reviews in the agreement are governance costs that companies are willing to pay in exchange for no licensing and no queue for release. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are placed in a post-facto position, meaning that daily pricing power remains with the companies. Orders for chips, cloud, and electricity will not stop because of a page of principles; they simply add a layer of demonstrable audit procedures.
In contrast to the deregulation of the computer industry during the Reagan era, the internet tax exemption of the 1990s, and the parallel security commitments and export controls during Biden's term. The first two segments use national rhetoric to make way for new industries; the latter segment adds restrictions while running. The current U.S. is in an expansionary self-regulation experiment, benchmarking against the competition with China, rather than EU-style pre-compliance. The industry's position is to turn the press conference into a temporary regulatory substitute.
Structurally, this represents a change in regulation. The mechanism is that the executive branch uses naming, signing ceremonies, and post-facto enforcement commitments to replace the pre-constraints of the legislative branch. Who can appear at the signing table participates in defining "sufficiently safe"; those excluded from the table can only accept the narrative of being led. Once the competition narrative overshadows the risk narrative, the discount rate for computing power investment will decrease.
ABAB News · Cognitive Laws
- Naming rights precede regulatory rights
- Leading narratives are the cheapest industrial policy
- Self-regulation buys time, post-facto enforcement leaves a backup