In a significant move that highlights the intricate dance between Silicon Valley and Washington, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has publicly affirmed his company's alignment with the Trump administration on key aspects of artificial intelligence policy.[1] The declaration, made in a detailed public statement, serves as a direct rebuttal to a wave of criticism from President Trump's own AI czar and other allies who have accused the prominent AI safety-focused company of fear-mongering and attempting to stifle competition through regulatory capture.[1][2][3] Amodei's maneuver seeks to reframe the narrative, positioning Anthropic not as a political adversary but as a committed partner in securing America's leadership in the global AI race, even as it navigates sharp ideological divides over the future of AI governance.

The public spat was ignited by an essay from Anthropic co-founder and head of policy, Jack Clark, titled “Technological Optimism and Appropriate Fear.”[1][2] In the essay, Clark described powerful AI as a “real and mysterious creature, not a simple and predictable machine.”[2] This characterization drew a sharp rebuke from David Sacks, a venture capitalist serving as President Trump's AI and crypto czar.[2] On the social media platform X, Sacks accused Anthropic of "running a sophisticated regulatory capture strategy based on fear-mongering" and alleged the company was "principally responsible for the state regulatory frenzy that is damaging the startup ecosystem."[1][2] Sacks further claimed Anthropic's agenda was to "backdoor woke AI and other AI regulations through Blue states like California," a potent accusation within an administration that has explicitly targeted what it calls "woke AI" in federal policy.[2][4] This criticism from a high-profile administration official forced Amodei to publicly defend his company's policy positions and its relationship with the government.[1]

In his comprehensive response, Amodei systematically countered the accusations by highlighting areas of deep alignment and active collaboration with the U.S. government and the Trump administration's agenda.[5][6] He explicitly stated that he publicly praised President Trump's AI Action Plan and noted a "good conversation about US leadership in AI" he had personally with the president at an energy and AI summit.[7][8] To substantiate claims of partnership, Amodei pointed to a two-year, $200 million agreement with the Department of War to develop advanced AI for national security and a partnership with the General Services Administration to offer its Claude language model across the federal government.[7][5][6] He also emphasized that Anthropic’s models are already deployed in classified settings through partners.[7][6] Further aligning with the administration's hawkish stance on China, Amodei stressed that Anthropic is the only major AI company to restrict the sale of its services to companies controlled by the People's Republic of China, arguing that the real threat to American AI leadership is not state-level regulation but "filling the PRC's data centers with US chips they can't make themselves."[5][6][9]

The central point of contention revolves around the issue of AI regulation. Sacks's criticism was heavily influenced by Anthropic's open support for California's Senate Bill 53, a law set to require more transparency and whistleblower protections for large AI companies.[7] Amodei defended this as a pragmatic step, arguing that in the absence of a federal framework, state-level action was necessary.[7] He countered the claim that this harms startups by noting the law was specifically crafted to only affect companies making over $500 million in annual revenue, a provision Anthropic itself supported to protect smaller businesses.[6][9] Amodei clarified that his company's preferred outcome has always been a uniform federal standard rather than a patchwork of state laws.[5][6] He also reminded critics that Anthropic, along with many others, had opposed a proposed 10-year moratorium on state-level AI laws, a provision that was overwhelmingly rejected in the Senate by a 99-1 vote, precisely because it would have created a regulatory vacuum without offering a federal alternative for a rapidly advancing technology.[5][8]

This episode underscores the immense pressure AI developers face as they navigate an increasingly politicized landscape. Amodei's statement was a careful attempt to disentangle his company's commitment to AI safety from accusations of partisan bias. He argued that managing AI's societal impact should be a matter of "policy over politics" and refuted claims that Anthropic's models are uniquely biased, citing a study from the conservative Manhattan Institute which found its model to be less politically biased than most major competitors.[5][9][10] The controversy reveals a fundamental rift in the tech and policy worlds between those who, like Sacks, believe regulation will smother innovation and cede dominance to global rivals, and those who, like Amodei, argue that responsible guardrails are essential for maintaining long-term U.S. leadership and public trust.[3] Anthropic's position, as a public benefit corporation, is to walk a fine line: pursuing rapid commercial growth—its revenue run rate has surged from $1 billion to $7 billion in nine months—while publicly wrestling with the risks of the technology it is creating.[3][9]

Ultimately, Amodei's detailed rebuttal was a strategic necessity, aimed at assuring the Trump administration and the broader market that Anthropic's focus on safety is not synonymous with an anti-innovation or partisan agenda.[1][11] He asserted a shared goal with the administration: "to ensure that powerful AI technology benefits the American people and that America advances and secures its lead in AI development."[1][5] The public exchange lays bare the competing philosophies on how to best achieve that goal. For the AI industry, it is a clear signal that demonstrating political neutrality, national loyalty, and a commitment to American economic and military dominance has become as crucial as technological prowess in the high-stakes race to build the future of intelligence.