US Vice President JD Vance on 14 September publicly questioned the motives of leading Artificial Intelligence companies that are lobbying the government to regulate them, describing the trend as feeling like a 'Trojan horse'. Speaking to reporters in Washington, Vance acknowledged real risks in AI development while expressing deep scepticism about why frontier tech firms would seek government oversight of themselves.

Vance's Core Concern

'There are obviously risks to AI, there are benefits to AI. I have to say, personally, I feel a little bit weird about the fact that we have so many frontier AI tech companies kind of talking to the government and begging the government to regulate them,' Vance said. He did not name any specific companies, nor did he elaborate on what he believed those firms stood to gain from regulation.

'It feels a little bit to me like a bit of a Trojan horse, so I think we just have to be careful about this,' he added. The remarks echo a growing concern among some policymakers that large incumbents may use regulation strategically to raise barriers to entry and lock in their market dominance — a phenomenon critics have termed 'regulatory capture.'

On AI Pauses and Regulating 'Smartly'

When asked about weekend calls to pause AI development, Vance stopped short of endorsing any moratorium. 'It's something that we're concerned by, but we want to make sure that we regulate smartly,' he said. The Vice President framed the administration's position as one of cautious engagement rather than alarm, emphasising that the risks were real but needed to be weighed carefully against strategic considerations.

The China Factor

Vance repeatedly pointed to competition with China as a central variable in how Washington should calibrate its AI policy. 'We know that the Chinese are engaged in this long-term AI race against the United States. We want to make sure the United States, we do things smartly but we stay ahead of the curve,' he said, attributing the sentiment to President Donald Trump's consistent position. This framing suggests the administration views overly restrictive regulation as a potential handicap in the US-China technology contest.

Congress and the White House: A Shared Mandate

On the question of which branch of government should lead on AI regulation, Vance argued for a unified approach. 'Any regulatory regime we'd like, ideally, Congress and the White House to agree on it so that we actually are able to make it stick and so that we actually get some real consensus behind it,' he said. The call for bipartisan, cross-branch consensus reflects a recognition that executive orders alone may not produce durable AI governance frameworks.

Other Remarks: Houthis and Military Consultations

Vance also addressed separate questions on Middle East security. He said the administration was in contact with the Emiratis, the Saudis, and others in the region regarding the Houthis and the Red Sea, adding that direct conversations with the Houthis themselves were ongoing. 'We actually feel like we are on top of the situation; it's a very fluid and dynamic thing,' he said, without providing further details. He also defended his practice of consulting senior military officers directly, calling it a standard part of understanding US foreign policy.

With AI governance still lacking a coherent federal framework in the United States, Vance's remarks signal that the administration intends to proceed deliberately — and with an eye on whether industry advocacy is shaping regulation in ways that serve corporate rather than national interests.