Staff Reports
Two fast-moving stories landed in the news this week and they are connected by one ugly idea: elites making private deals and telling the rest of us to trust them. Governor Gavin Newsom told Jake Tapper he “wouldn’t run if [former Vice President Kamala Harris] ran,” a surprising deference between two big California names. At the same time, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published an essay calling to “pace the frontier” of AI, and within hours rivals like OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Elon Musk signaled agreement. Both moments deserve a hard second look — not because they’re dramatic, but because they demand answers about power, fairness, and national security.
Amodei’s Essay and the Instant Consensus
Dario Amodei’s essay asked top AI labs to slow capability gains and accept third‑party checks. That sounds reasonable on its face — safety matters. But what turned heads was how fast the industry lined up behind the idea. Sam Altman said he agreed. Elon Musk said “Dario is right.” That kind of rapid, public alignment among fierce competitors is unusual. It pushed politicians and pundits to respond within hours. Supporters call it responsible leadership. Critics warn it looks too coordinated to be purely about safety.
Why “Pacing” Raises Red Flags
Buyers should always beware when sellers write the safety rules. Leading critics and legal experts have raised real concerns: this could look like regulatory capture or even a cartel seeking protection from competition. Antitrust questions are not theoretical — asking the government for legal cover while rivals agree to limit capability gains is exactly the kind of arrangement that deserves scrutiny. There’s also a clear geopolitical cost: if China or other rivals don’t play along, a voluntary U.S. slowdown could weaken American advantage. Those are not partisan fears — they are practical ones.
Newsom’s “I Wouldn’t Run” — Politics or Pact?
Governor Newsom’s line in the fly‑fishing interview — that he wouldn’t challenge former Vice President Harris — is a political headline with a hint of backstage dealmaking. These two California power players have had friction before, so Newsom’s sudden deference looks like more than casual courtesy. Whether it’s gentlemanly restraint or a tactical calculation to avoid a bruising primary, it signals elite management of outcomes. That same impulse — elites quietly deciding the field — is the theme behind the tech leaders’ pacing push.
What Voters Should Watch and Demand
Both the AI “pacing” proposal and Newsom’s deference remind us that when powerful people ask for trust, citizens should ask for transparency. Congress, the Department of Justice, and the public need to know whether these moves are genuinely about safety or about protecting incumbents. Regulators should investigate any private coordination, and lawmakers should weigh national security risks before giving sweetheart legal deals. In short: skepticism is healthy. Don’t let Silicon Valley or Sacramento alone write the rules that will shape our safety and our politics.
