Bessent Becomes Front-Runner for Trump's AI Czar Position
According to Reuters on Tuesday citing an informed source, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has become one of the leading candidates for the newly established "AI Czar" position in the Trump administration; another source indicated that no final decision has been made yet, and the Treasury Department did not immediately comment on this.
This personnel discussion stems from Trump's announcement over the weekend—he stated that he would create an "AI force" modeled after the "Space Force" established during his first term, and mentioned that he would "soon" appoint a new AI Czar, but did not disclose specific details; he referred to those advocating for increased AI regulation as "radical left Democrats" and "doomers," and stated that the dangers posed by AI should primarily be addressed through the existing criminal justice system rather than additional legislation.
In addition to Bessent, other reported candidates include Scott Kupor, director of the White House Office of Personnel Management and former A16Z executive; Sriram Krishnan, former White House AI policy advisor and also from A16Z; Chamath Palihapitiya, founder of Social Capital and co-host of the All-In podcast; Sean Cairncross, White House National Cybersecurity Director; Emil Michael, Chief Technology Officer at the Pentagon and former Uber executive; and Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office of Technology Policy. David Sacks, who previously held the role, is believed not to be returning but is still informally advising Trump on maintaining a light regulatory approach.
Reports indicate that candidates with ties to venture capital firms generally face additional scrutiny regarding conflicts of interest, while those associated with Anthropic and OpenAI face more resistance due to both companies preparing for significant IPOs.
Bessent has previously played a key role in AI policy formulation during the Trump administration and recently engaged in talks with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng regarding the establishment of an "AI safety incident reporting mechanism" between the U.S. and China; it is reported that he became more actively involved in AI policy matters after warning several financial institutions about the potential risks advanced AI systems could pose to financial operations. Bessent himself told CNBC: "When President Trump talks about appointing an AI Czar, I think it is to establish the context, shape, and boundaries for the relevant issues."
From the perspective of power and resource competition, the intense competition for the AI Czar position is primarily due to its direct influence on the federal level regarding the regulation of the AI industry and the direction of resource allocation—if Bessent is appointed, the Treasury's existing financial regulatory and cross-border policy tools will be further tied to AI industry regulatory functions, benefiting Silicon Valley AI companies and related venture capital firms that wish to maintain a light regulatory environment and accelerate commercialization; candidates closely associated with Anthropic and OpenAI are excluded due to the impending IPOs of these companies, reflecting the White House's deliberate avoidance of potential conflicts of interest in candidate selection, attempting to keep decision-making power in the hands of establishment officials with less direct ties to specific AI company equity interests but who are overall friendly to the industry. White House spokesperson Kush Desai responded to related reports by stating, "Any reports about personnel decisions not yet officially announced by the government should be regarded as unfounded speculation."
This personnel discussion is taking place against the backdrop of rising concerns among congressional members regarding the risks of AI technology, while Trump has previously downplayed concerns about AI risks and publicly stated that no additional regulatory measures are necessary.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
Bessent's career trajectory itself is a history of "cross-sector takeover"—he previously served as Chief Investment Officer at Soros Fund Management, excelling in macro monetary and interest rate bets, and after entering the Trump administration as Treasury Secretary, his actual jurisdiction has long exceeded traditional Treasury functions: he previously led tariff negotiations with China, participated in discussions on Ukraine mineral agreements, and is now considered the front-runner for the AI Czar position. This aligns with Trump's consistent pattern of appointing a few highly trusted officials to concentrate cross-domain and cross-departmental decision-making power, rather than assigning independent leaders based on professional fields. The previous AI/Cryptocurrency Czar, David Sacks, also came from a Silicon Valley venture capital background, indicating that this position has been inclined toward candidates with financial or investment backgrounds and a tendency for relaxed regulation since its inception, rather than professional regulators or scientists.
From the perspective of resource mobilization, almost all popular candidates besides Bessent—Scott Kupor, Sriram Krishnan, Chamath Palihapitiya—are directly or indirectly from A16Z and its associated venture capital network, meaning the candidate pool is highly concentrated within the Silicon Valley venture capital circle, and the interests of these institutions are inherently tied to the regulated entities—their invested AI companies. In contrast, pushing the Treasury Secretary role, which does not hold specific shares in AI companies, toward this position shifts the logic of capital and power flow from "favoring specific invested enterprises" to extending the national capabilities originally used for sanctions and cross-border capital regulation into the realm of AI governance, which is also the institutional basis for Bessent's ability to lead discussions on the U.S.-China AI safety incident reporting mechanism during the UN General Assembly.
Historically, the logic behind the establishment of "Czar" positions is highly similar—positions like Drug Czar and Cybersecurity Czar often lack independent statutory authority, and actual influence entirely depends on the personal trust distance between the appointee and the president; David Sacks' initial appointment as AI and Cryptocurrency Czar set a precedent of "finding an industry-friendly regulatory figure" rather than a career regulatory official. In terms of industry positioning, the current AI governance in the U.S. is in the early stage of "personalized regulation"—power is concentrated in the hands of individuals personally selected by the president, rather than being executed by permanent federal agencies according to rules, which sharply contrasts with the EU's path of establishing a rule system through the codified AI Act, and continues the Trump administration's consistent preference for "achieving deregulation through personnel control" rather than "institutional building".
The underlying structural change is essentially a regulatory change—while Congress has been unable to reach a consensus on AI legislation, the executive branch has chosen to establish a "Czar" position directly accountable to the president, which does not require congressional authorization, keeping the regulatory scope of AI highly discretionary and adjustable at any time, thereby avoiding the protracted legislative process while maintaining the appearance of "the government is in control". The mechanism at play is that once regulatory power is concentrated in a single position rather than codified law, the actual regulatory environment faced by AI companies will swing dramatically with the personal stance of the appointee; and the unexpected appearance of the Treasury Secretary, who manages sanctions and cross-border capital tools, on this candidate list sends a more specific signal—that this administration may prefer to manage AI risks through financial system channels (for example, requiring banks and financial institutions to establish AI risk prevention mechanisms) rather than establishing a dedicated AI safety regulatory agency, which itself is a bet on "who will truly control AI regulatory power in the future."
ABAB News · Cognitive Laws
- When legislation cannot be enacted, change to a trusted person to manage it.
- Holding onto old tools allows for a smooth takeover of new tracks.
- The newer the title, the more likely to find familiar old faces.