Superpower Daily

Superpower Daily

Your reading space

Sign in
Unsealed NYT Case Filings Expose Internal Warnings at Microsoft...AWS Says Iran Strikes Caused Permanent Customer Data LossEuropean Commission Proposes Barring Chatbots From Simulating R...Mapbox Adds Live Maps and Route Controls for AI AgentsGoogle Researchers Introduce Dream-RSI, Reporting 162x Fewer Ag...Stanford Tests a Virtual Biotech for Early Drug-Discovery Decis...Unsealed NYT Case Filings Expose Internal Warnings at Microsoft...AWS Says Iran Strikes Caused Permanent Customer Data LossEuropean Commission Proposes Barring Chatbots From Simulating R...Mapbox Adds Live Maps and Route Controls for AI AgentsGoogle Researchers Introduce Dream-RSI, Reporting 162x Fewer Ag...Stanford Tests a Virtual Biotech for Early Drug-Discovery Decis...
Swipe

Pentagon CTO Opposes U.S. Stakes in AI Companies and Broad New Rules

Emil Michael’s approach would rely on existing enforcement and voluntary company restraint, leaving open who decides when an AI system is safe enough to release.

By 2 min read
Pentagon CTO Opposes U.S. Stakes in AI Companies and Broad New Rules
Pentagon CTO Opposes U.S. Stakes in AI Companies and Broad New Rules

Listen to this story

The audio brief

About 1:22
0:001:22
Read transcript
The Pentagon’s top technology official is rejecting both government ownership of AI companies and a broad new rulebook for the industry. In a September 16 interview on CNBC’s Squawk on the Street, CTO Emil Michael said the government should rely on existing laws, including enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC. His preferred safety valve is voluntary restraint: companies could hold back an AI release while they assess whether the system is safe and aligned. But Michael presented that as an option, not a government mandate or a disclosed commitment from any company. He also opposed the United States taking partial stakes in AI firms, or nationalizing them, arguing that government should not get in the middle of the industry. The approach puts the burden on corporate judgment, backed by laws that already exist, rather than on broad AI-specific standards. That leaves a difficult question unresolved: who decides whether a company’s safety and alignment assessment is good enough? Michael pointed to a recent hack involving Hugging Face as concerning, but said he did not know what regulation would have prevented it. So the immediate constraint is clear: this model depends on companies choosing to delay releases when necessary, while regulators use existing authority after the fact. What remains open is how anyone evaluates that choice before a system reaches the public.

Story brief

3 key points

In a September 16 CNBC interview, Pentagon CTO Emil Michael argued that AI companies should remain privately owned and governed mainly through existing laws, including FTC enforcement. He suggested developers could voluntarily delay releases while evaluating safety and alignment, but offered no government standard for judging those decisions. Michael also called a Hugging Face-related hack concerning without...

  1. 01

    Michael rejected both partial U.S. ownership and nationalization of AI companies.

  2. 02

    He pointed to existing laws and FTC enforcement instead of a broad AI rulebook.

  3. 03

    Voluntary release delays were presented as an option, not a disclosed mandate or company commitment.

The Pentagon’s top technology official is arguing that AI safety should be handled without government ownership of AI companies or broad new rules written specifically for the industry. Emil Michael said companies could voluntarily hold back releases until their systems are safe and aligned, while existing laws remain the government’s enforcement tool.

Michael made the comments during a September 16 appearance on CNBC’s Squawk on the Street. Asked whether the Trump administration should seek partial ownership of AI companies, the Department of Defense chief technology officer said he hoped it would not. He also opposed nationalizing those companies.

Enforcement, not a new AI rulebook

Michael repeatedly signaled opposition to expanding regulatory oversight of AI companies. Instead, he said the government should enforce existing laws, including laws enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, rather than create broad new AI regulation. He framed the choice as pre-regulation versus holding companies responsible for developing safe, aligned products.

Voluntary restraint is the proposed safety valve

Michael’s position does not mean companies should release every system they develop. He said developers could voluntarily stop or delay some releases while they determine whether the products are safe and aligned. That is a proposed approach, not a disclosed government requirement or a commitment by AI companies.

A concerning hack, without a clear regulatory fix

Michael called a recent AI hack involving Hugging Face concerning, but said he did not know what regulation would have prevented it. The comment captures the limit of his case: an AI-related security incident may demand a response, but he did not see it as proof that a new broad rule would stop a similar incident.

Michael’s interview puts a senior defense official behind a model of corporate judgment backed by existing legal enforcement. The unresolved question is how companies’ safety decisions would be assessed when the government declines to set broad new AI-specific standards.

Sources

  1. cnbc.comPentagon CTO says U.S. government shouldn't take stakes in tech giants, questions adding AI rules

Loading discussion...