White House Downplays AI Pre-Release Vetting Plans
Susie Wiles said the Trump administration is 'not in the business of picking winners and losers' on AI, downplaying reported pre-release vetting plans.
Objective Facts
President Trump's administration is considering requiring US government oversight of artificial intelligence models before they are released to the public, a sharp reversal of the previous hands-off approach to the technology, according to the New York Times reported on May 4. The proposed order would establish a working group of tech executives and government officials to develop oversight procedures, with White House staff briefing leaders from Anthropic, Google, and OpenAI on the plans last week. However, on May 7, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles said the Trump administration is 'not in the business of picking winners and losers' on AI, suggesting an FDA-like approval regime for AI is unlikely. A White House official dismissed reports of the potential executive order as 'speculation'. The immediate catalyst was Anthropic's Mythos model, which can identify software security vulnerabilities, potentially leading to a cybersecurity reckoning.
Left-Leaning Perspective
National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said earlier Wednesday that the White House is considering an executive order requiring AI models to go through a process so 'they're released in the wild after they've been proven safe, just like an FDA drug.' This statement from Hassett, made the same day as Wiles's downplaying remarks, underscores internal administration conflict on the vetting question. Progressive analysts note that since the news of possible orders requiring AI vetting, Democrats have shown more interest in negotiating on the framework, suggesting the left saw the May 4 reporting as potential movement toward safety-first policies. However, Wiles's May 7 statement appears designed to reverse that perception and reassure Silicon Valley that the administration won't impose burdensome review processes. Left-leaning outlets and commentators emphasize the contradiction: if the White House is truly not considering vetting, why did officials brief Anthropic, Google, and OpenAI executives on detailed oversight plans? Critics argue Wiles's language about "not picking winners and losers" is a rhetorical feint to mollify tech companies while the administration quietly develops policy. The framing implies the left views the downplaying as political cover for a policy reversal driven by industry lobbying rather than genuine principle. Left-leaning coverage also emphasizes the danger of Mythos and the cybersecurity risks that should drive government action. However, limited explicit left-wing reaction to Wiles's specific downplaying statement was found in the search results, with most progressive commentary focused on the initial vetting proposal itself rather than the administration's subsequent walked-back messaging.
Right-Leaning Perspective
The American Enterprise Institute criticized the vetting proposal, calling it 'a stunning reversal' but stating 'It would also be a mistake,' and arguing that 'A mandatory government AI vetting regime would likely do little to enhance security, while creating significant harm to innovation and competition.' This conservative think tank frames government vetting as economically harmful despite national security concerns. In commentary, Trump's previous stance—calling AI a 'beautiful baby' that needed room to thrive without 'foolish rules'—is contrasted with the emerging vetting proposals, with the right emphasizing Trump's early favor for Silicon Valley and his rolling back of Biden-era mandates for safety tests on models with military potential. Right-leaning outlets interpret Wiles's May 7 remarks as Trump's true position re-emerging after momentary pressure. The Daily Signal reported that Wiles's statement indicated 'an FDA-like approval regime for AI is unlikely.' Conservatives see this downplaying as reassuring news for the tech industry and consistent with the administration's deregulatory philosophy. The right frames the initial vetting proposal as a temporary aberration prompted by Mythos hysteria rather than a genuine policy shift. However, there are differences of opinion within the administration about how strong the vetting process of new models should be, as some officials prefer a light touch to regulation while others want to aggressively vet new models, indicating even right-leaning officials within the administration remain divided on how far to push innovation over safety.
Deep Dive
The core tension underlying this story is between two different readings of Wiles's May 7 statement. One interpretation holds that the administration's vetting discussions (documented briefings, working group proposals, internal deliberations) were genuine policy development, and Wiles's dismissal as 'speculation' represents a political retreat in response to industry pressure and internal resistance from Trump-era deregulation advocates still in the administration. The other interpretation suggests the briefings were part of normal policy analysis—gathering options and stakeholder input—without constituting formal proposals, making Wiles's clarification accurate rather than contradictory. Internal administration disagreement is real: some officials prefer a light touch to regulation while others want to aggressively vet new models, indicating this is not a case of a unified administration changing direction but rather competing voices with different leverage at different times. The New York Times's May 4 reporting coincided with Bessent and Hassett's public comments emphasizing guardrails, creating momentum. By May 7, Wiles—speaking for Trump directly—appears to have re-centered the deregulation position. What remains unclear is whether this represents Trump's settled view or another temporary shift as different factions press competing agendas. The Anthropic-Pentagon conflict provides crucial context often overshadowed by the vetting debate. In April, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Anthropic's motion to lift the Pentagon's supply-chain-risk designation, ruling that removing it would force the military to continue dealing with 'an unwanted vendor of critical AI services in the middle of a significant ongoing military conflict,' and that ruling shifted legal leverage back toward the government, even as the White House pursued a more conciliatory political path. Wiles's softer rhetoric may represent an effort to diplomatically resolve the Anthropic impasse while preserving government leverage—neither imposing formal vetting (which could alienate industry) nor backing away entirely (which could appear to Anthropic like a policy victory).