September 29, the White House.
Trump convened the CEOs of more than 20 leading global AI companies—Amodei (Anthropic), Zuckerberg (Meta), Pichai (Google), Jensen Huang (Nvidia), Musk (xAI)—at a meeting.
After the meeting, Trump said:
"The smartest people oversee each other, and that’s enough."
The United States will not have new federal AI regulations. The companies signed a voluntary agreement, pledging self-regulation, setting up internal controls, and mitigating risks of biological/chemical weapons and cyberattacks.
This matter has several dimensions worth clarifying:
For AI companies: This is the outcome they wanted. Before the meeting, Zuckerberg and Musk directly lobbied Trump against creating an AI regulatory body similar to FINRA. Not regulating means faster movement, lower costs, and no regulatory-risk discount on Anthropic’s $2 trillion IPO narrative.
For Europe: It creates a clear competitive divergence. The EU AI Act fully takes effect in 2027, meaning European companies must bear compliance costs, while U.S. companies choose self-discipline. This split will become clearer over the next few years.
On calls for an "AI slowdown": Essentially, they were denied. Amodei, Altman, and Musk said last week that AI should slow down, but this week they all appeared at the White House. The conclusion was self-regulation—there’s a significant gap between actions and words.
For BTC: The regulatory vacuum is positive for investment in AI infrastructure—Nvidia, cloud computing, and the AI application layer can expand more quickly. Risk appetite rises, and BTC, as a supporting asset for the AI economy, benefits.
But there is one tail risk: if the voluntary agreement fails, the scale of the next incident will be larger—at that point, mandatory regulation would cost far more than it would now.
Do you think AI self-regulation is credible?
$BTC
$NVDA

#特朗普拒绝ai监管改用自愿审计