🔎 Unwritten AI rules | AI+ Government Summary

June 18, 2026 | Ashley Gold & Maria Curi

1. Key Themes

Theme 1: The "Shadow AI Policy" — Regulation in Everything But Name

The Trump administration publicly opposes AI regulation while simultaneously shaping the industry through opaque, ad hoc interventions — creating a de facto regulatory regime without formal rules.

"What has emerged is a shadow AI policy, one that shapes the AI industry's future without ever spelling out the rules."

"Unlike traditional regulation, this influence operates outside of the formal rulemaking process, with few published standards and limited guidance for companies to help navigate the administration's expectations."

The building blocks of this shadow policy are export controls, voluntary testing frameworks, and procurement guidelines — each wielded on a case-by-case basis rather than through transparent rulemaking.

Theme 2: Export Controls as an Emerging AI Policy Tool — With Global Consequences

The administration is repurposing export controls — traditionally a national security instrument — as a lever for domestic AI governance. This creates unpredictability for companies and undermines the U.S.'s own AI export ambitions.

"The government's willingness to arbitrarily and abruptly remove America's best models from all foreign use shows that the strategy behind the AI Export Program is no longer relevant to decision makers in the U.S. government." — Dean Ball, former Trump AI adviser

A tech industry source noted there are "downstream consequences" to using export controls as a means of enforcing tech policy, setting new precedents for future oversight and licensing of tech releases.

Theme 3: Congressional Paralysis Cedes AI Governance to the Executive Branch

With midterms looming and Capitol Hill frozen on AI legislation, the White House is filling the vacuum through executive action — an unstable and legally fragile governance structure.

"Despite recent efforts, including a bipartisan AI safety bill introduced in the House, Capitol Hill is frozen on AI as midterms loom, and the administration is taking the lead with executive action."

"It is supposed to be the role of Congress to make laws the administration then enforces."

Theme 4: U.S. AI Dominance Creates Unavoidable Global Dependency

Even as foreign nations seek "tech sovereignty," they cannot fully decouple from American AI models — giving U.S. policy decisions outsized global reach.

"At the G7 summit this week, the notion that other countries need to establish 'tech sovereignty' so as to not rely on American companies loomed large. But foreign leaders also know they can't ignore the world's leading models and only rely on homegrown AI."

"The Trump administration may not call it AI regulation, but its decisions are dictating the future of the technology around the world."

Theme 5: White House AI Power Is Shifting — and Fragmenting

The departure of Silicon Valley-aligned advisers David Sacks and Sriram Krishnan is redistributing AI policymaking power to a broader, less technically fluent cast of officials, while internal turf wars introduce additional policy risk.

"With Sacks stepping back from day-to-day involvement and Krishnan preparing to leave, influence is shifting inside the White House to a broader group of officials and aides."

"Cairncross believes that Treasury has become too involved, while Bessent and allies in the White House believe Cairncross has not met the moment with the necessary urgency."

2. Contrarian Perspectives

Perspective 1: "Anti-Regulation" Is a Misnomer — The Administration Is Actively Regulating AI

The consensus view is that the Trump White House is permissive on AI. The article argues the opposite: it is regulating aggressively, just without the transparency or consistency of formal rules — arguably making it more interventionist in practice.

"The Trump administration may not call it AI regulation, but its decisions are dictating the future of the technology around the world."

The Anthropic case is illustrative: the administration imposed export controls on a specific company's specific models (Fable and Mythos), effectively creating a licensing regime. This is more targeted and less predictable than broad statutory regulation.

Perspective 2: The AI Export Program May Already Be Obsolete

The Trump administration created the American AI Export Program to promote U.S. AI dominance abroad — but its own ad hoc interventions may have already undermined the program's credibility with allies and partners before it fully launched.

"The government's willingness to arbitrarily and abruptly remove America's best models from all foreign use shows that the strategy behind the AI Export Program is no longer relevant to decision makers in the U.S. government." — Dean Ball, former Trump AI adviser

Foreign governments considering adoption of U.S. AI systems now face the risk that access could be revoked without warning — a trust deficit that benefits Chinese and European alternatives.

Perspective 3: Personnel Departures May Be the Biggest Near-Term AI Policy Risk

The conventional focus is on executive orders and legislation. But the hollowing out of technical expertise inside the White House — Sacks, Krishnan, and now Thomas Lind at the ONCD — may be the most consequential near-term policy variable.

"Cairncross' head of policy and senior adviser Thomas Lind plans to leave, further depleting the Trump administration of technical expertise."

"If personnel is policy, look to this latest cast of characters shaping a U.S. regulatory regime with global reach."

3. Companies Identified

Anthropic

Description: Leading AI safety-focused lab, maker of the Claude family of models
Why mentioned: Central case study in the shadow AI policy dynamic — the administration imposed export controls on its Fable and Mythos models, creating a confrontation that reshuffled White House AI power dynamics
Quote: "The Anthropic situation also illustrates a central concern for the industry: uncertainty. Without clear rules, companies can find themselves navigating personalities and broader politics as much as policy."

Amazon

Description: Major cloud and technology conglomerate; significant investor in Anthropic
Why mentioned: Raised safety concerns about Anthropic directly to Treasury Secretary Bessent, illustrating how private-sector concerns are being channeled through informal White House relationships rather than regulatory processes
Quote: "[Bessent] was the point of contact when Amazon raised concerns about Anthropic safety issues."

OpenAI

Description: Leading AI lab, maker of GPT and ChatGPT
Why mentioned: OpenAI's policy chief Chris Lehane floated the idea of a global AI standards forum at the G7, signaling the industry's preference for multilateral governance over unilateral U.S. controls
Quote: "AI CEOs talked with Trump at the G7 summit yesterday about the possibility of what OpenAI's Chris Lehane described as a global forum for AI standards."

4. People Identified

Howard Lutnick

Description: U.S. Secretary of Commerce
Why mentioned: The most ascendant AI power player in the current administration — signed the letter triggering the Anthropic export control confrontation and is leading G7-level AI access negotiations
Quote: "He's fixing a problem. He's not being a problem. And he's doing a great job." — Senior administration official

Scott Bessent

Description: U.S. Secretary of the Treasury
Why mentioned: Emerged as an unexpected AI policy actor — trusted by the private sector and serving as an informal interlocutor between industry (Amazon/Anthropic) and the White House
Quote: "Bessent is trusted by the private sector and critical infrastructure operators as a sober actor."

Susie Wiles

Description: White House Chief of Staff
Why mentioned: Though not a day-to-day AI policy figure, she intervened in the Anthropic situation after Bessent raised financial sector concerns, demonstrating how AI disputes are now escalating to the highest levels of the White House
Quote: "She was receptive to Bessent's concerns about how Anthropic's Mythos could impact the financial sector, helping to reopen lines of communication with the company."

Ryan Baasch

Description: National Economic Council official
Why mentioned: Identified as the internal White House torch-carrier for AI policy following Sacks and Krishnan's departures; has worked to push federal preemption of state AI laws
Quote: "Baasch is said to be the person carrying the torch inside the White House for Sacks and Krishnan."

David Sacks

Description: Former White House AI and Crypto Czar; venture capitalist
Why mentioned: One of the original Silicon Valley architects of Trump's AI agenda, now stepping back to the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
Quote: "Silicon Valley figures David Sacks and Sriram Krishnan have served as key architects of the administration's AI agenda."

Sriram Krishnan

Description: Senior White House AI policy adviser; former a16z partner
Why mentioned: Co-architect of the administration's AI agenda, preparing to depart by end of June 2026, creating a significant policy vacuum
Quote: "With Sacks stepping back from day-to-day involvement and Krishnan preparing to leave, influence is shifting inside the White House to a broader group of officials and aides."

Sean Cairncross

Description: National Cyber Director
Why mentioned: In open turf conflict with Treasury over AI policy; his office is also losing senior technical talent (Thomas Lind), weakening its institutional position
Quote: "Cairncross believes that Treasury has become too involved, while Bessent and allies in the White House believe Cairncross has not met the moment with the necessary urgency."

Dean Ball

Description: Former AI adviser in the Trump administration
Why mentioned: Provided the sharpest external critique of the administration's self-contradictory export policy
Quote: "The government's willingness to arbitrarily and abruptly remove America's best models from all foreign use shows that the strategy behind the AI Export Program is no longer relevant to decision makers in the U.S. government."

Chris Lehane

Description: OpenAI's head of policy
Why mentioned: Floated the idea of a global AI standards forum at the G7, representing the industry's preferred governance alternative to unilateral U.S. export controls
Quote: "What OpenAI's Chris Lehane described as a global forum for AI standards."

Chris Fall

Description: Commerce Department, Center for AI Standards and Innovation
Why mentioned: Conducting technical AI standards meetings in Washington while Lutnick operates at the diplomatic level abroad — the domestic counterpart to Commerce's G7 engagement
Quote: "While Lutnick brokers abroad, Chris Fall at Commerce's Center for AI Standards and Innovation has been holding technical meetings in D.C."

5. Operating Insights

Insight 1: AI Companies Must Now Navigate Personalities and Politics, Not Just Policy

The Anthropic case makes clear that without formal rules, regulatory outcomes are driven by relationships with specific officials. For AI company operators, this means government affairs strategy must map key decision-makers (currently Lutnick, Bessent, Wiles, Baasch) and maintain multiple channels of White House access — not just with dedicated AI advisers.

"Without clear rules, companies can find themselves navigating personalities and broader politics as much as policy."

Insight 2: Government Procurement Requirements Are Becoming a De Facto Compliance Floor

The GSA is considering a rule requiring privacy and security standards for LLMs processing government information. For AI companies seeking federal contracts, this voluntary-to-mandatory pipeline means investing early in compliance infrastructure is both a competitive advantage and eventual table stakes.

"The General Services Administration is also considering a new rule around safeguarding data when LLMs process government information that would set certain privacy and security standards for companies wishing to contract with the government."

Insight 3: Participation in the AI Export Program Is Now a Strategic Government Relations Asset

Companies selected for the American AI Export Program receive expedited export license reviews, prioritized access to federal credit programs, and dedicated interagency coordination. In an environment of ad hoc controls, formal enrollment in this program offers meaningful risk mitigation.

"Those who are selected for the program will get expedited export control license reviews, prioritized access to U.S. federal credit programs, government-to-government advocacy abroad and dedicated interagency coordination."

6. Overlooked Insights

Insight 1: The G7 Is Becoming a Parallel AI Governance Arena

While domestic regulatory debates dominate the conversation, the G7 is quietly emerging as a forum where the real rules of global AI access are being negotiated. Lutnick's active presence — leading sideline meetings on AI model access and flanking Trump at press conferences — signals that international deal-making, not domestic legislation, may be where AI governance is actually being written in the near term.

"He is now leading meetings on the sidelines of the G7 to discuss expanding access to advanced AI models and standing next to President Trump during his summit press conference."

Insight 2: The Lutnick-Imposed Export Control on Anthropic May Establish a Licensing Precedent for All AI Labs

This detail is easy to miss in the broader Anthropic drama, but the export control action isn't just company-specific — it may have created a replicable licensing architecture applicable to any advanced AI model.

"Last week, Lutnick imposed export controls on Anthropic, effectively creating a licensing regime that could eventually impact other AI labs."