Trump called AI safety warnings a hoax while senators discussed new guardrails

President Donald Trump said Monday that existing criminal and regulatory powers give the government enough authority to police AI companies. He called warnings from the AI industry about rogue systems a hoax. He said opposition to AI and data centers was a conspiracy that would help China. Vice President JD Vance said he was skeptical of frontier AI companies asking the government to regulate them.

Senate negotiators were discussing a different approach. Reuters reported that Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Commerce Committee chair Ted Cruz and Senator Amy Klobuchar were weighing a bill. The bill would require AI developers to show that they had taken reasonable precautions against catastrophic harm. The Commerce secretary could ask companies for evidence and send government auditors to test their products. No bill text is public, and Reuters could not determine what reasonable precautions would mean.

House Speaker Mike Johnson said he expected Trump to meet AI executives this week or early next week. Johnson said they would discuss company safety duties and the government's role. Reuters and the Associated Press independently reported the White House position and the Senate talks.

Trump's statements did not change a law or issue a new executive order. The Senate language remains under negotiation and has not been introduced. Reuters could not determine what reasonable precautions would mean. The market reaction reported Monday does not establish that safety warnings caused every decline in AI-linked shares.

Existing criminal law can punish unlawful conduct after it happens. A duty of care would make developers provide evidence before deployment. Outside tests could create a record that a company would have to defend after a failure.

The Senate proposal still leaves basic questions unanswered. Lawmakers would need to define reasonable precautions, set measurable thresholds and say who gets access. They would also need to spell out the consequences. Government auditors would need authority to inspect systems that companies do not release publicly. The administration could oppose the bill or narrow the Commerce Department's role.

AI companies want coordination while they compete for customers, capital and compute. Regulation could give every company the same safety floor. It could also favor large companies that can afford the compliance costs. Public bill text would show which outcome is more likely.

If senators introduce a bill, its text should define catastrophic harm and name the capability thresholds that trigger oversight. It should say what evidence the Commerce secretary can demand. It should also explain whether auditors can test unreleased models and what happens when a developer refuses.

The expected White House meeting is the next political test. A participant list, agenda or joint statement could show whether the administration would accept voluntary audits. Without a public record, outsiders would have nothing from the meeting to inspect.