Worries about artificial intelligence causing catastrophic harm are no longer confined to science fiction and late-night podcasts. Calls for new safeguards are multiplying, Bloomberg reports, but the people who would design those rules cannot agree on what they should look like.
The administration’s playbook: use what already exists
On October 10, 2026, President Donald Trump’s preferred approach came into focus. Rather than create a new federal regulatory regime built specifically for AI, the administration favors enforcing existing liability laws to manage the technology’s risks.
The stance has backing from prominent names. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent supports it, as does David Sacks, the former White House AI czar.
That position builds on a White House meeting held September 29-30, 2026. There, Trump endorsed a non-binding accord among major AI companies, including Anthropic, OpenAI, Nvidia, Meta and Google.
The accord focuses on two things: robust internal processes at the companies, and independent audits. The key word is non-binding. Participating firms are agreeing to hold themselves to a standard, not submitting to one enforced by law.
Advertisement
Experts can’t agree, and one dissent comes from inside Big Tech
On October 2, 2026, Google’s James Manyika said AI needs regulation that goes beyond self-policing, warning that companies keeping themselves in check is insufficient given how critical the technology has become.
A RAND report from March 2026 helps explain why the debate has stalled. The study gathered the views of 24 AI and policy experts and found little optimism that strict regulation is achievable.
Among the options assessed, the experts rated incentives for risk disclosure as the most promising path. Strict regulations landed at the bottom, viewed as the least feasible. Voluntary measures and disclosure incentives were seen as the more realistic tools.
The states aren’t waiting
On September 18, 2026, Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order launching a review of AI safety plans.
The review also covers so-called “kill switch” mechanisms, ways to shut down an AI system if it starts behaving dangerously. The order reflects rising concern about risks driven by AI.
What this means for the AI industry and investors
For the companies building frontier AI, the administration’s approach offers breathing room. Leaning on existing liability law rather than new rules means firms may face less immediate pressure to overhaul how they operate.
Relying on liability law means the boundaries get defined after harm occurs, often through lawsuits, rather than spelled out in advance.
If California and other states pursue their own safety requirements, firms could face a patchwork of rules that varies by jurisdiction, which is typically more expensive to navigate than a single national standard.
Several things are worth watching. One is whether the independent audits promised under the accord actually take place and what they reveal. Another is what California’s review produces, particularly on kill switch requirements. A third is whether dissent like Manyika’s spreads to other executives, which would make the argument that self-regulation is sufficient harder to sustain.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Diego Almada Lopez. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.