Trump stated: AI needs guardrails, but "the fewer, the better".

U.S. President Donald Trump has clearly stated his fundamental position on AI regulation—acknowledging the need for certain standards, but insisting that restrictions be kept to the absolute minimum. This remarks came amid a backdrop of escalating conflict between the federal government and Anthropic over export controls on its AI models, followed by the gradual lifting of those restrictions—reflecting the internal tension within the Trump administration on AI regulation.

“You need some guardrails, but do as little as possible,” Trump said Thursday in an interview with CNBC at the White House. He also hinted that the authorities had taken swift action against a certain “dangerous player,” but did not disclose the specific target.

The above statement coincided with the government just lifting export restrictions on Anthropic’s Fable 5 model. Earlier, that control measure had shaken Silicon Valley and was seen as a signal that the Trump administration was deviating from its usual hands-off regulatory stance. At the same time, according to the Financial Times, OpenAI has begun preliminary discussions with the U.S. government regarding the sale of a 5% equity stake, further stirring market expectations about where AI industry policy may be headed.

Anthropic Turmoil: Tightened Controls, Then Loosened

This brief tussle between the federal government and Anthropic has become the latest footnote to the Trump administration’s AI regulatory stance. Last month, the Department of Commerce, citing cybersecurity concerns, imposed export controls on Anthropic’s two models, Mythos 5 and Fable 5, requiring the company to obtain prior approval from the U.S. government before allowing any foreign citizen to access them. The decision forced Anthropic to shut down the aforementioned models and enter negotiations with government officials to resolve the security issues.

Last week, the government began easing restrictions, allowing Anthropic to restore access to Mythos 5 for certain U.S. institutions approved by the government; this week, controls on Fable 5 were also lifted. Although the export restrictions were ultimately revoked, the incident still left Silicon Valley unsettled—it showed that even under the Trump administration, the AI sector is not entirely free from government intervention.

OpenAI Equity Proposal: Trump Sidesteps the Question

In the same interview, Trump was asked about the Financial Times report on OpenAI and the U.S. government holding preliminary talks regarding an equity arrangement. According to the report, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and other executives proposed that Washington hold a 5% stake in each of the major U.S. AI developers, potentially including Anthropic, Alphabet’s Google, and Meta Platforms, though it remains unclear whether those other companies would recognize or accept the proposal.

Trump did not respond directly and instead talked about the government’s 2025 acquisition of a stake in Intel, characterizing it as a successful case that delivered rich returns for taxpayers. In fact, Trump has previously stated on multiple occasions that he is interested in the government holding equity in AI companies and claimed he had discussed the matter with relevant executives, but did not disclose any specific details.

Discussions about profit sharing among AI companies have recently heated up significantly. As concerns about AI replacing human workers continue to intensify, and as companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic prepare for initial public offerings, calls for AI enterprises to share revenue with the government or the public have grown louder. If the government equity plan is ultimately implemented, it will have far-reaching effects on the above companies’ IPO valuations, equity structures, and their relationships with regulators.

Risk Warning and Disclaimer

        The market is risky; investment requires caution. This article does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it take into account any specific investment objectives, financial circumstances, or needs of individual users. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article are suitable for their particular circumstances. Any investment made based on this is at the investor’s own risk.