By Salem Chicago News Staff
WASHINGTON — OpenAI and Anthropic are pushing for federal restrictions on artificial intelligence ahead of plans to take their companies public, according to national security analyst Jim Hanson. Hanson, president of the security and strategy consultancy WorldStrat, says the push has less to do with safety than with protecting the companies’ market position before their public offerings.
Hanson spent years working Washington defense and security policy after leaving the military, a background that shapes how he reads competition between the U.S. and China over emerging technology. He argues that regulation aimed at slowing down American AI developers would hand China an advantage it could not otherwise win on its own.
‘Regulatory Capture’
“They’re scared about their IPOs because they are burning truckloads of $100 bills to build these super-cool AIs,” Hanson says of the leading AI companies. He describes their lobbying push in blunt terms: “They’re trying to say, ‘We want some regulatory capture. We want the government to step in and stop our competitors.’”
Hanson points to Senator Bernie Sanders’ public calls for AI restrictions as an example of political pressure that, in his view, lines up with Beijing’s interests regardless of intent. He argues China’s AI strategy depends on catching up to, rather than outpacing, American developers. “China’s best bet is to steal our IP. They can’t catch up unless we handcuff ourselves,” he says.
Xi, Trump, and the Human-Control Frame
The debate over AI regulation gained fresh attention this week after President Trump hosted Chinese President Xi Jinping at the White House. Xi told reporters through a translator that AI development should remain “under human control” and said the two nations “have both the capability and responsibility to develop and manage AI for good.” Hanson sees that kind of framing as an attempt to slow U.S. competitors under the banner of caution.
He predicts the current administration will resist calls to restrict American AI companies through regulation. “They all have the same goal, and their goal is to stop us from dominating. And guess what? President Trump ain’t about all that,” Hanson says.
Hanson’s broader point is that regulatory intervention marketed as consumer or safety protection can function differently in practice, slowing the companies with the most to lose from being first movers while leaving room for competitors, including Chinese firms, to close the gap.
Sanders and China-IP claims are presented as Hanson’s attributed opinion, not independently verified fact.
