Trump’s AI chief’s big Iran warning gets big time ignored

Hello and welcome to Regulatora newsletter for Edge subscribers on the politics of technology and the technology of politics — now landing in your inbox on Wednesdays! If someone forwarded this email to you and you are not a Edge still subscribed, you should register right hereand not just because it would be really cool if you did that. We can apparently see how many non-subscribers opened this email, and why should Palantir have the fun of “spying on people”?

Do you have any cool events to highlight, tips to share, and secrets to reveal? Send everything to tina.nguyen+tips@theverge.com. Or, if you’re really passionate about technology, send me a message on LinkedIn.

Surprisingly, artificial intelligence is not the highest policy priority during a war — let alone an ill-conceived war with Iran that has crippled energy markets, destabilized America’s relations with the Middle East and Europe, and alienated the president’s members. that of Donald Trump Unconditional MAGA Coalition. (Just yesterday, Joe Kentelection denier and former Trump-backed congressional candidate, announced he was resigning as director of the National Counterterrorism Center to protest the war in Iran.) But the effect this will have on the tech and AI industry – and the industry in general – is so dire that David Sacksbillionaire and AI and crypto czar who is shaping the Trump administration’s technology policies, did something politically risky: he publicly suggested that Donald Trump find a way out of the war in Iran.

Last Friday on his podcast WhileSacks and his team presented several realistic and alarming scenarios based on recent developments: Iran indicated it was prepared to attack oil and gas deposits in neighboring countries, destroy desalination plants crucial to water supplies for more than 100 million people (which Sacks described as a “humanitarian crisis” that would render the Middle East uninhabitable), and bomb Israel until it relents or decides to use nuclear weapons. Democrats would likely win the midterm elections. But also, and undoubtedly worse, a Third World War was possible. “This would be a great time to take stock of where we are and try to, I think, look for a way out,” he told his co-hosts. “And look, if escalation doesn’t lead to anything good, then you need to think about how do you de-escalate the situation? And de-escalation, I think, involves reaching some sort of ceasefire agreement or some sort of negotiated settlement with Iran.”

Whatever advice Sacks may have tried to offer fell on deaf ears. In addition to the U.S. military’s continued attacks on Iran’s oil infrastructure, in recent days Trump has expressed openness to sending U.S. troops on the ground in Iran, said NATO countries hesitant to support him were making a “stupid” decision, and just because he plans to invade Cuba next. Trump also told reporters this week that Sacks had not spoken to him about the war either. Whether true or not, Trump often defaults to this explanation when trying to downplay a criticism. And the sources I speak with at the White House — especially those familiar with Trump’s modus operandi — are pessimistic that Sacks will have any chance of getting the president to listen to him.

Anyone who hates David Sacks may notice that the billionaire has reached the limits of his perceived influence over Trump. At the same time, each of Trump’s former allies — especially those who don’t work for him — have also reached this limit. The anti-war MAGA isolationists have been completely betrayed. Market-minded titans of industry are at the mercy of Trump’s whims. Damn, Trump turned around and adopted the neoconservatives who once despised him, but who are now the only ones on the right to demand regime change in Iran. (If you want to get an idea of ​​how his administration’s underlings enable Trump, I was literally at the Pentagon last week for a vibe check.)

Among Trump’s oligarchic classes, technologists may suffer the longer-term effects. Unlike the MAGA base, which supported Trump for intangible ideological reasons, Big Tech has a deep financial incentive to remain allied with the president. Much of their current advantages are based on their direct relationships and ability to appease his ego, which has certainly paid off for them over the past year: antitrust investigations dropped, trade loopholes opened, executive orders signed, etc. (What do you think the ballroom donations were for?) And it’s possible that they thought the situation in Iran would be similar to that in Venezuela, where they would reap the benefits of seizing Iranian oil supplies, and decided not to intervene.

But there is one key characteristic they have overlooked, dating back to Trump’s relationship with Roy Cohn in the 1970s: Trump doesn’t like to be humiliated by his enemies, and Trump is always inclined to hit back twice as hard in order to crush their spirits, without regard for the consequences or long-term damage. This manifests itself primarily in legal challenges and lawsuits in the United States, but has sometimes taken a violent direction (see: January 6 and the ICE protests in Minnesota). In this case, he is trying to take over a violent religious theocracy, which the military has declared jihad against the United States following the death of Khamenei, and also possesses missiles. The rich nerds who make the beeps have very unlikely to change Trump’s mind – especially as long as there is a political contingent on the right pushing him – and even if Sacks thought he was speaking to a friendly audience in a safe online space, there is no guarantee that Trump will be happy to have expressed his dissent to all.

Oh, that’s right, crypto still exists too.

Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to attend much of the Blockchain Conference this year (see: Iran), but it appears that some major developments came out of it, including the CFTC and SEC dropping a major directive that most digital assets are not securities, clarifying how certain cryptocurrencies are regulated and what rules apply. But although it is the most comprehensive document published on this crucial issue, they also cautioned that it always needs Congress to pass laws that would make these changes permanent, and the CFTC is already busy enough. In other words: The Clarity Act still needs to pass, folks. And it seems to be going well. RIGHT?

.. another blockchain-based bar! This time, Polymarket announced the surprise opening of The Situation Room, “the world’s first bar dedicated to situation monitoring.” According to renderings published on (Polymarket did not immediately comment on the location of said bar.)

I’ve been doing a little spring cleaning at home and recently found a quart Ziploc bag containing a handful of spare change that I’ve been wanting to deposit at Coinstar for over a year. But I’m lazy, and if there’s anything I’ve learned from TMZ, it’s that paying money for stories works (sometimes). So I will give this bag of change to anyone who can send authentic, verified, non-AI-generated footage of this reported fight between Sam Altman and playwright Jeremy O. Harris exclusively, unofficially Vanity Fair Oscar Party, allegedly over OpenAI’s contract with the Pentagon. (I assume that the audience of Regulator is made up of Hollywood stars.)

And no, I’m not going to send you the cash equivalent of the value of the bag. Condition for payment is that you must remove this bag from my hands, including all Costa Rican currency. AND I keep all the neighborhoods. And in the extraordinarily unlikely event that someone follows through on this offer, I need to get Nilay Patel’s permission to violate the ethics policy this time, because this is technically a quid pro quo, albeit an extremely horrible quid pro quo for whoever sends it.