US President Trump: AI Slowdown Calls are an Evil Revolution
US President Trump publicly responded to recent calls from some tech executives to slow down the development of artificial intelligence, stating that these individuals are "revolutionaries fighting for a bad and evil cause."
Trump indicated that these tech executives calling for an AI slowdown "are working for others and do not have America's best interests at heart," directly questioning the motives behind their calls rather than addressing the technical arguments regarding AI safety.
This statement continues the overall tone of the Trump administration on AI issues since taking office—prioritizing the assurance of America's technological lead in AI relative to competitors like China, viewing calls for a slowdown or increased regulation as potential threats to America's competitive advantage rather than prudent risk management considerations.
It should be noted that the existing quotes do not specify which tech executives are being referred to or the context in which these statements were made; the report itself only presents this quote without additional background details.
Mechanically, this is a purely statement-driven event rather than a policy or transaction-driven one: it does not constitute a direct catalyst for specific company stock prices or AI assets in the short term, but it provides political support from the White House for AI giants to continue expanding capital expenditures and accelerating product deployment, while signaling an unfavorable political environment for proposals advocating for "pausing research" or "increasing AI safety legislation."
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
Since taking office in early 2025, Trump's first action on AI policy was to revoke the AI Executive Order 14110 signed during the Biden administration, followed by signing the "Eliminating Barriers to American AI Leadership" executive order and releasing the "AI Action Plan," with an overall tone of accelerating deployment and reducing regulation, clearly positioning AI development as a core leverage in technological competition with China rather than an emerging technology requiring careful risk assessment. Referring to tech executives calling for an AI slowdown as "evil revolutionaries" is an extension of this consistent stance towards specific individuals.
In terms of capital pathways, this stance is reflected in the government's support for domestic AI infrastructure investments, including promoting the "Stargate" mega data center investment plan related to OpenAI, Oracle, and SoftBank, as well as pushing to relax semiconductor export controls to allow American AI chips and models to spread more quickly to allied markets. The common logic of these actions is to direct capital and policy resources towards "accelerated expansion" rather than towards "compliance review" or "safety pause," thus any calls for a slowdown will be seen as contrary to this resource allocation direction.
This is similar to how during the Cold War, the US viewed the aerospace and semiconductor industries as tools of national competition, thereby weakening internal cautious voices within the industry—once a technology is incorporated into the narrative of great power competition, internal risk skeptics are easily redefined as "dragging their feet" rather than being treated as mere technical ethics discussants. The current AI industry is at such a stage: geopolitical competition narratives have deeply intervened in internal technical route debates about development speed.
Essentially, this represents a regulatory shift: AI safety issues are being redefined from "technical ethical issues" to "national competition issues." The mechanism at play is that once AI is framed within the context of great power competition, domestic calls for a slowdown or increased regulation are easily interpreted as actions that weaken the country's relative advantage, providing the government with political justification to resist regulatory constraints internally and compete for technological dominance externally, while allowing discussions of technical risks to yield to geopolitical discourse.
ABAB News · Cognitive Laws
- Once technology is defined as a competition, safety becomes the opponent's rhetoric.
- Those advocating for a slowdown will always be defined as traitors by those advocating for acceleration.
- Once the narrative of national competition intervenes, technical debates become positional statements.