President Donald Trump responded Monday to warnings of potential dangers related to artificial intelligence by dismissing the need for any safeguards and calling AI concerns a “hoax.”

Trump rejected the idea of placing guardrails on AI, saying on Truth Social that the only control needed is “a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades!”

In the post, he appeared to hint at the government’s pursuing criminal or regulatory penalties against AI companies after industry insiders warned of potentially catastrophic dangers posed by the rapidly evolving technology.

“The Trump Administration has stopped AI ‘people’ from doing bad, or potentially bad, ‘things,’ like Dario (Anthropic!), who is now pretending to be a ‘perfect little angel’ — and we will continue to do so!” he said, referring to Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, maker of the Claude AI chatbot.

Amodei said Saturday in an essay that AI companies should “slow the pace” of AI development.

Trump continued: “We already have tremendous CRIMINAL and REGULATORY power over these companies! There is a SICK conspiracy going on against AI and Data Centers, and the only one that is happy about it is China. WHOEVER WINS AI, WINS! We are leading China, and all others, and will continue to do so. Conspiracy Theorists, Treasonists, Traitors, and Leakers, BEWARE!”

Even as the American public and members of his own party grow increasingly skeptical of AI, Trump has framed the technology’s continued growth as an economic and geopolitical imperative. Communities that reject AI data centers will wind up “backwards and poor,” he warned recently. And in Ireland over the weekend, he was even blunter: “Whoever wins AI wins.”

Yet, a recent NBC News Decision Desk Poll found that 70% of adults said they were more worried about AI than excited about it. A similar percentage — 69% of adults — said they somewhat or strongly oppose building AI data centers in their areas. That includes 57% of Republican voters.

Trump remained undeterred Monday afternoon, returning to Truth Social in a full-throated defense of AI, saying, “AI taking over the World, destroying Humanity, and all other things bad, is a HOAX.” In the same post, he said AI would be “the Greatest Economic Development Engine in History — Bigger than Oil, Gold, Diamonds, or even the Internet.”

He later called in to the All-In Summit and made similar remarks to Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang. He posted in support of AI more than a half-dozen times Monday on Truth Social.

Amodei’s recent warning has prompted other AI leaders to publicly call for a slowdown in its development so researchers can better understand and control any threats posed by the technology. They include OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, who said his company would adopt one of the safeguards Amodei proposed in his essay.

Last week, Anthropic AI researcher Jacob Coxon resigned, writing in a viral X post that OpenAI and Anthropic were “gambling with our lives” and warning that “the people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.” A lead Anthropic researcher, Evan Hubinger, said on X that Coxon was right, saying that “we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!”

Many politicians responded with their own calls for stronger checks on AI to address safety concerns.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on Monday called for a Senate briefing with top administration officials, while House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said he expects Trump to “summon” AI platform leaders for a “deliberate discussion about the responsibility of the companies to maintain safety and what role, if any, the government has to play in that.”

A meeting between Trump and AI leaders is “in the works,” but no timing has been nailed down yet, a source familiar with the matter told NBC News.

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, told reporters Monday that he is “long-term pro-AI” but that he understands regulations could protect against a potentially “catastrophic event.”

“The notion that we’ve got the leaders of the most cutting-edge innovation going on in the world at this point and with the amount of capital into this saying, ‘Hey, we even think we need to slow down,’ and we don’t take that advice? … I think we’d all look pretty damn silly if months from now we had an event that we could have stopped,” Warner said.

Some Republicans said AI regulation would not be feasible until after the November elections.

“To look at this Congress at this point in time and expect us in the foreseeable future to draft an AI regulation bill that strikes the proper balance between safety and innovation is not going to happen. Nothing’s going to happen, in my opinion, until after the midterms,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told reporters.

Kennedy added that in his view AI leaders were asking Congress for permission to slow their development, adding, “They don’t need our permission.”

Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., said what worries him about AI “is that you’ve got a bunch of people up here, literally, who are probably still driving their ’72 AMC Gremlins with some eight-track tape players — and they probably just parked their powder blue leisure suit a couple years ago — are going to be regulating something they have no idea what it is.”

He said he would like Congress to “bring in the industry people and figure this thing out and get it right.”

Former President Barack Obama on Monday called AI leaders’ move to slow the pace of development a “good and necessary first step,” saying it was time to “structure a more open, public and democratic conversation about AI.”

He said voluntary standards by companies were not enough.

“We need government — and specifically our leaders in Washington — to get proactive in coming up with concrete proposals, laws and regulations that deal with serious safety concerns, anticipate AI’s impact on jobs and our kids, and make sure that AI’s benefits are widely spread,” he said.

Obama called last week for AI policy to be prioritized within the Democratic Party.

Vice President JD Vance told reporters Monday that AI leaders’ warnings are “something that we’re concerned by” but said the administration wants to ensure “we actually regulate smartly.”

“I have to say, just personally, I feel a little bit weird about the fact that you have so many frontier AI tech companies kind of coming to the government and begging the government to regulate them,” Vance said. “It feels a little bit to me like a bit of a Trojan horse. So I think we just have to be careful about this.”

Beijing on Monday disparaged the warnings from U.S. tech leaders as “fearmongering” from a “Cold War playbook” aimed at hobbling China.

During his trip to Ireland, Trump asserted over the weekend that the U.S. was leading China in artificial intelligence and said, “Whoever wins AI wins.”

“We can put guardrails,” he said Sunday. “We can do this and that, but I think you have a lot of negative forces that are bringing it up that shouldn’t be bringing it up, and they’re bringing up things that won’t happen.”

Read full story here…

Happy Tuesday, and welcome to another edition of Rent Free. This week's newsletter includes stories on:

• The Trump administration's latest strategy for boosting manufactured housing construction.
• Anti-pot activists' use of California's environmental review law to stop new cannabis facilities.
• Yet another data center backlash in the heart of data center country.

Chassis Gone but Not Forgotten

Building codes for traditional site-built housing are typically set by states or local governments. Manufactured housing, which is built in off-site factories and then delivered as a completed unit to its final destination, is controlled by building codes set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

One major piece of direct deregulation in the 21st Century Road to Housing Act, which became law in July, was the elimination of the HUD code's requirement that manufactured housing sit on a permanent steel chassis.

Wonks debate just how burdensome this rule was and how responsible it was for causing a major decline in the production of manufactured housing.

Regardless, no one believes that the requirement did anything but raise costs for what was once a major source of affordable housing.

While Congress' new housing law officially eliminates the chassis requirement, actually implementing this deregulatory change will require a number of additional federal rules and further local and state deregulation.

The Trump administration got the ball rolling on the former last week, when HUD unveiled its "Next Generation Manufactured Housing Action Plan."

It announced HUD's plan to begin crafting new construction safety and installation standards for now-permitted chassisless manufactured housing. The Road to Housing Act requires this rule change, but does not set a deadline for when it needs to be done.

Additionally, HUD announced its plan to begin rulemaking on creating new energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing, as required by the new housing law. This must be completed by July 2027.

That's the same deadline for states to submit certifications to the federal government that they've changed their own regulations on manufactured housing to conform to the new federal rules that no longer require a chassis.

These rule changes will all take time. We can at least be sure they will happen, given that the changes are required by the new housing law.

A potential bottleneck, as always, will be local zoning codes that are not directly impacted by Congress' reforms.

Many localities still define manufactured housing as a home that's built with a permanent chassis. That language could end up blocking manufactured homes constructed without a chassis under the new standards.

Another plank of HUD's action plan is to provide "stakeholders" with information on zoning for manufactured housing. The 21st Century Road to Housing Act also creates various financial incentives for localities to update their zoning codes to allow for more housing.

That is to say, carrots can still be brought to bear to ensure that local deregulation happens. But voluntary action on the part of localities or additional preemption of local zoning laws by states will still be required for federal chassis reform to be fully realized.

Anti-Pot Group Uses Environmental Law To Block New Cannabusiness Zoning Rules

Recreational marijuana was legalized by California voters a decade ago. The rule changes needed to allow entrepreneurs to grow and sell the stuff are still a work in progress.

Back in August, after five years of work, San Diego County at last certified its environmental review of zoning changes that would dictate where commercial cannabusinesses like dispensaries and grow operations could set up shop in unincorporated areas.

That certification has merely led to another roadblock.

In September, the group No Skunk Butts filed a lawsuit under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to block implementation of the new zoning rules.

CEQA requires local governments to study the environmental impacts of discretionary actions they undertake, including zoning changes. Third parties are empowered by the law to sue if they believe a locality did not conduct a thorough enough review of a zoning change's environmental impacts.

As reported by Village News, No Skunk Butts alleges in its lawsuit that the county did not do enough to study cannabusinesses' potential impacts on water and air quality, as well as noise and odor.

This is hardly the first time that CEQA has been used to hamstring the expansion of California's legal cannabis industry. Local activists have frequently challenged individual permits for cannabusinesses and, as in San Diego County's case, cannabis zoning and licensing regimes.

In 2017, the California Legislature attempted to forestall some of this litigation by allowing localities to pass cannabis regulatory regimes without going through CEQA. But that reform merely shifted CEQA onto individual businesses, who'd have to do their own environmental analysis when applying for permits.

Despite legalization, California's heavy-handed regulation of the cannabis industry has enabled a large marijuana black market to persist. CEQA is a major, if underdiscussed, part of that story.

A Data Center Backlash on the Edge of Data Center Alley

Last week, the Board of Supervisors of Fauquier County, Virginia, passed a raft of new restrictions on data center construction.

The new rules eliminate by-right zoning for data centers, meaning new projects will be required to obtain special, discretionary permits. The reforms also limit data center construction to a single zone within the county, reports InsideNoVa.

Prior to the changes, data centers were allowed to be built by right in business parks countywide.

The country is in the middle of a massive backlash against data center construction. It's thus not inherently surprising that a county government would pass new rules on data center construction.

It is conspicuous that Fauquier County would do so. The jurisdiction sits just to the south of Loudoun County, home to the world's largest concentration of data centers. (It's been nicknamed "data center alley.")

Data centers have been a massive economic driver in Northern Virginia and a massive fiscal boon to the Loudoun County government, which has taken in so much revenue from these facilities that it's been able to cut property taxes on homeowners.

Loudoun County itself recently eliminated by-right zoning for data centers, which it once regulated like office spaces.

It doesn't bode well for the industry if jurisdictions that once welcomed data centers with open arms, and profited handsomely from them, are moving to restrict new facilities.

Quick Links

• Tim Carney on the surprising walkability of America's OG car-oriented suburb.
• The strange socialist-libertarian fusion that is Vancouver, Canada's First Nation housing developments.
• Texas landowners in the way of President Donald Trump's border wall fight the federal government's eminent domain efforts.
• A British charitable foundation calls on the government to use rent control to reduce the cost of affordable housing subsidies. Road to Serfdom, anyone?

The post Code Games 2.0 appeared first on Reason Magazine.