Steve Bannon, along with 60 other individuals—including several allies of former President Donald Trump—has endorsed a letter calling on Trump to ensure that advanced artificial intelligence systems go through rigorous government scrutiny before they are made available to the public.
The letter, sent by the group Humans First, highlights the potential risks posed by frontier AI models, which they claim could endanger American security, youth, employment, and the general way of life.
Humans First identifies itself as a conservative movement and submitted the letter on Friday. Among its notable signatories are Amy Kremer, the Chairwoman of Humans First and a well-known political activist, as well as roughly thirty church leaders.
In a statement to Axios, Bannon emphasized that "mandatory testing and government approval" for AI technologies is imperative.
The letter raises alarms about the swift progress of AI and the risks new systems may present to areas such as cybersecurity, essential infrastructure, financial markets, electoral integrity, and biosecurity.
While the signatories advocate for the U.S. to lead in AI advancement, they stress the importance of responsible development. They argue that no private entity should have the unchecked authority to launch untested AI systems into the marketplace.
The coalition urging Trump to take action has called for an executive order mandating that frontier AI technologies undergo testing, assessment, and government vetting prior to their public release.
The letter asserts, "America did not become the greatest nation in the world by permitting unelected elites to experiment on the public without safeguards or accountability." It embodies the notion of "America First," prioritizing national strength, security, and the well-being of citizens.
Daniel Schiff, a co-director at the Governance and Responsible AI Lab at Purdue University, stated that the letter could provoke discussion among policymakers. He noted that it's uncertain which specific AI concerns might resonate with conservative circles, but he anticipates that this push could influence future policy considerations.
“Will this letter alone lead to tangible changes? That's uncertain,” Schiff remarked. “However, a coalition exists that is well-organized, financially backed, and working both at the state and national levels, engaging with various groups to amplify their message.”
In response to the evolving landscape of AI, Trump’s administration has already laid out an AI action plan and implemented multiple executive orders aimed at expediting technological innovation.
Trump has focused on reducing barriers to AI development and the economic opportunities it brings, including fast-tracking data center construction, promoting American AI exports, and lessening state-level restrictions.
Schiff observed that the national AI policy has often lacked clear direction, noting that there is bipartisan apprehension regarding U.S. competitiveness, particularly against China. Yet, he highlighted that recent policy shifts, particularly concerning export regulations and the oversight of major AI firms, have shown inconsistencies.
“There isn't a definitively cohesive federal strategy in place at this time,” asserted Schiff.
While past administrations have aimed to foster innovation while minimizing regulatory barriers for AI, the recent push for pro-innovation sentiment has intensified under Trump's presidency.
The letter voiced concerns about AI companies conducting experiments that affect the American populace. Schiff noted that these worries stem from the disruptive potential these technologies pose to critical societal frameworks, like education and labor.
As public concern about AI companies' power escalates, Schiff emphasized the insufficient regulations currently governing these firms. He stated that most computing and policy experts would agree on the necessity for greater oversight.
“There are not only immediate dangers and threats—like those associated with chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear risks—but also widespread apprehension about employment disruption and misinformation,” he said. “Each of these issues demands serious societal engagement and decision-making.”
