President Trump's newly created "Super Intelligence" task force is charged with bringing the administration's fragmented AI work under one umbrella while determining how to keep pace with rapidly advancing artificial intelligence. The group is marked by internal divisions: some members push for model approval and government coordination, while others remain deeply skeptical of regulation out of concern it would slow competition and model development.
Who's involved and what interests clash
The task force is co-chaired by Scott Kupor, who also serves as director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Kupor is a Silicon Valley veteran and was the first employee hired by venture firm Andreessen Horowitz.
The composition of the group reflects competing fiefdoms within the administration. Treasury figures such as Scott Bessent and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles have quietly encouraged oversight, including use of a voluntary model-review process. That review process, managed within the Commerce Department, has reportedly been used for leading models at Anthropic, OpenAI and now Google.
On the other side, figures like David Sacks and Emil Michael from the Pentagon are wary of steps that could slow model development or reduce competition among frontier companies.
Jay Clayton, the director of national intelligence and the administration's new "AI czar," is expected to help unify the group's work in much the same way he coordinates among intelligence agencies.
Kupor's views and the regulatory approach
Kupor rejected the idea that the administration is asleep at the wheel on AI policy, warning that rigid, static laws risk becoming obsolete. "The worst thing for us to do would be to assume a static set of knowledge that allows us to put a regulatory schema in place that then has unintended consequences," he said.
He acknowledged the political nature of decision-making in Washington: "Look, we live in D.C. ... There's nothing that's not political in this town. People have different views and that's totally fine. Our obligation is to demonstrate to the American people that this is good and also that we take the anxieties and the concerns seriously." He added, "At the end of the day there is no daylight between the president and anyone else, which is we need to win."
Kupor suggested one possible outcome could be dividing AI regulation among different federal agencies, but he cautioned it is too early to say what the group's 120-day review will ultimately recommend to the president.
Methods and focus areas
Kupor said his initial work will focus on soliciting input from stakeholders in the energy, manufacturing, security and financial services sectors. He expects Jay Clayton to keep close tabs on the intelligence community and for the committee to maintain close contact with AI companies.
The administration is leaning heavily on corporate self-policing to manage AI risks. Kupor and other officials believe that third-party audits and direct reporting to corporate boards carry significant securities-law implications that rival traditional government oversight.
Objective and the open question
Kupor emphasized the task force's goal is not to produce a bureaucratic "PhD dissertation" but practical guidance that preserves innovation while addressing safety. Still, it remains uncertain whether streamlining existing efforts without new legislation will be sufficient to reassure Americans increasingly anxious about AI safety.
