Populist Alliance Against AI
Ideological opposites Steve Bannon and Bernie Sanders took the same stage at Washington’s Pro‑Human Assembly on Tuesday, warning of the perils posed by unchecked artificial intelligence. Both denounced Silicon Valley’s “oligarchs” and called for stringent guardrails, yet their prescriptions for tackling the AI race with Beijing could not be more divergent. The gathering, which also featured members of Congress, labour leaders and religious figures, reflected a growing bipartisan unease about the technology’s societal impact.
Sanders Pushes for a Global Treaty
Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, invoked the memory of Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev to argue that humanity’s survival depends on diplomatic cooperation rather than technological confrontation. He highlighted President Trump’s upcoming meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, urging a comprehensive treaty to pause advanced AI development and ban super‑intelligent machines. “A super‑intelligent AI that escapes human control will not be an American problem. It will not be a Chinese problem. It will be humanity’s problem,” he told the hotel ballroom audience. He then drew a parallel with the nuclear arms negotiations of the Cold War, noting that leaders once recognised a shared peril and forged a treaty that eliminated an entire class of weapons. “They understood that a nuclear war would not be good for the Soviet Union, not be good for the United States, not be good for the world, and they came together for a nuclear treaty. With the survival of humanity at stake, they found a way to sign that treaty,” Sanders added.
The senator criticised the current policy vacuum, accusing Congress of “asleep at the wheel” and the president of “ignorance regarding this issue is truly embarrassing.” He claimed that “virtually all of the decisions regarding the development of AI have been made by a handful of the richest people in the world … whose chief goal is to achieve even more wealth and more power than they already have, no matter what the impact their work has on ordinary people.” Sanders announced plans to introduce legislation next week that would impose a permanent ban on artificial super‑intelligence and an immediate pause on advanced AI until robust safety rules are in place.
Bannon Demands a Tech Quarantine of China
Speaking after Sanders, Bannon adopted a starkly different tone, calling for an aggressive economic and technological “quarantine” of China. He asked a series of rhetorical questions that echoed Cold‑War sentiment: “Did our fathers and grandfathers, did they underwrite the Soviet Union? Did they train Soviet Union scientists? Did they take Russian kids over here to college to let them go to the best universities and get the best degree? Did they have Wall Street slobbering to do their deals? Did they have every bank there to lend them money quicker than to lend anyone in this audience? The answer is they did not. They stood up to the Soviet Union and the first thing to stand up to them was to choke them off and that’s what we have to do today to the Chinese Communist party. No deals, no agreements, you’re out of the AI business because we’re going to shut your ecosystem down.” He demanded the immediate expulsion of Chinese nationals from US research labs, an end to training programmes for Chinese engineers, and a total severance of capital flows. “No chips, no black marketing chips, no free ride off American technology, no steal on American tech … To hell with the Chinese Communist party,” Bannon declared, insisting that only after such isolation could the United States consider sensible regulation of its own tech sector. He accused Silicon Valley of “socialising all the risk with the American people including potential bailouts” while retaining all financial upside, and warned that “the American people are not going to be supplicants to these tech oligarchs.” Bannon praised grassroots campaigns that have previously defeated federal pre‑emption bills aimed at blocking state‑level AI regulations, framing the fight as a broader battle against elite capture.
Congressional and Industry Reactions
The assembly also heard from lawmakers who are shaping the policy debate. Congressman Greg Casar, co‑sponsoring Sanders’s proposed legislation, accused AI billionaires of deploying massive political spending to stifle regulation. “Even as the threat becomes clearer, there are many powerful people fighting to prevent action,” Casar told attendees, noting that “AI billionaires are spending millions through the Leading the Future Pac to scare politicians into silence. The top Republicans who control the House of Representatives are not lifting a finger.” He added that “Leading in AI diplomacy does not mean waiting around for an international agreement on dangerous AI. Putting up guardrails now is the best way to show we are serious about getting to a deal.”
Republican congressman Chip Roy expressed scepticism about concentrating decision‑making power either in the executive branch or tech boardrooms. “The president yesterday said he should be making the decisions about AI. I disagree. I don’t think big tech CEOs should be making all the decisions about AI. I don’t think Congress should be making all the decisions about AI. If we allow technology to fundamentally alter and transfer and change the way we make decisions about our society and our Republican form of government, then what do we have left?” he asked, underscoring concerns about the erosion of democratic processes.
Recent surveys cited by participants show majorities of Americans worry that AI could eliminate jobs, raise costs for families or cause social harm. Residents in several states have also challenged proposals for new data centres, a critical component of the AI boom. The Pro‑Human Assembly, set against this backdrop of growing anxiety, highlighted a rare moment of bipartisan consensus on the need for oversight, even as deep divisions remain over the best path forward.
Why it Matters
The convergence of such divergent voices on AI regulation signals a pivotal shift in US policy discourse. While traditional ideological lines are blurring, the underlying debate—how to balance innovation with public safety, and whether to engage China diplomatically or isolate it technologically—will shape the nation’s strategic position in the coming decades. The proposals on the table, from a global treaty to a full‑scale tech quarantine, could redefine America’s approach to emerging technologies and its role in the global AI race, with far‑reaching implications for economic competitiveness, national security, and democratic governance.
