White House AI and Crypto Czar David Sacks on Thursday, June 11, 2026, declared that his warning — issued roughly eight months ago — that Anthropic was pursuing a 'sophisticated regulatory capture strategy based on fear-mongering' has since gained widespread acceptance, noting that the view was once controversial but is now echoed by many.

Context

Sacks posted on X that his earlier characterisation of Anthropic's regulatory posture — which he described as leveraging existential-risk narratives to shape rules in the company's favour — was initially met with pushback. He now argues that the broader commentary landscape has shifted to align with his position. The post does not cite specific individuals or publications who have come around to the view.

Anthropic, founded in 2021 by former OpenAI researchers including co-founder and CEO Dario Amodei, has been a prominent voice in global AI policy discussions, consistently emphasising the potential for catastrophic risks from advanced AI systems and calling for robust government oversight.

Policy Backdrop

The regulatory capture argument contends that dominant AI incumbents use safety rhetoric to lobby for compliance regimes that are expensive to meet — effectively raising barriers that protect established players while disadvantaging smaller rivals. This pattern has precedents in sectors ranging from fintech to biotechnology.

The policy environment has been in flux. The Biden administration's October 2023 Executive Order directed federal agencies to set AI safety and security standards. The European Union's AI Act, finalised in 2024, established a risk-tiered framework for high-impact AI systems. The current Trump administration, with Sacks at the centre of AI and crypto policy, has signalled a preference for deregulation over prescriptive oversight in both domains.

Stakeholders and Impact

The stakes are significant for AI startups and mid-sized labs that lack the lobbying infrastructure of frontier players. If regulatory frameworks are shaped primarily by the largest safety-focused labs, the cost of compliance could entrench incumbents and slow the pace of open or competitive AI development.

AI safety advocates, for their part, argue that the risks Anthropic and similar organisations highlight are genuine and that framing safety advocacy as regulatory capture dismisses legitimate scientific concern. The tension between these positions is now a defining fault line in Washington DC's approach to AI governance.

What's Next

With Sacks occupying a senior White House role, his public statements carry direct policy weight. Any forthcoming executive actions, congressional hearings on AI licensing requirements, or export-control decisions will be read against the backdrop of this ideological position.

The debate is likely to intensify as the Trump administration moves toward formalising its AI policy framework — a process in which Sacks' scepticism of safety-driven regulation will be a material, not merely rhetorical, input.