For years, leaders of major artificial intelligence companies have publicly welcomed regulation.
They’ve said they support oversight.
They’ve called for guardrails.
They’ve warned about risks.
But now, Washington is witnessing something different: a high-stakes political battle between AI giants over what regulation should actually look like.
And it’s no longer theoretical.
Millions of dollars are already on the table.
The Split Inside the AI Industry
Anthropic has just committed $20 million to a new super PAC called Public First Action, a political action committee designed to push for stricter AI safety rules.
The move positions Anthropic against another heavyweight-backed PAC: Leading the Future, which is aligned with OpenAI supporters and major Silicon Valley investors.
What we’re seeing isn’t just lobbying.
It’s a structural split in how the AI industry wants to shape its future.
Two Visions for AI Regulation
Washington is now dealing with dueling AI super PACs:
Leading the Future
- Backed by Andreessen Horowitz
- Supported by OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman and investor figures like Joe Lonsdale and Ron Conway
- Has amassed more than $100 million in pledges
- Advocates for federal regulation (avoiding a patchwork of state laws)
- Focused on maintaining U.S. AI leadership
Public First Action
- Backed by Anthropic
- Pushing for tighter safety guardrails
- Supporting pro-regulation Republicans like Senator Marsha Blackburn and Senator Pete Ricketts
- Structured as a dark-money nonprofit, meaning donors are not publicly disclosed
Anthropic did not directly name OpenAI in its announcement but warned that “vast resources have flowed to political organizations that oppose” AI safety efforts.
The message was clear.
Regulation: Strategy or Power Play?
This raises a fundamental question:
When AI leaders said they welcomed regulation, what did they actually mean?
Historically, tech companies have often supported regulation in principle — especially when it’s distant, slow-moving, or federal (which can override stricter state laws).
The social media industry is a clear precedent. For years, regulation was discussed. Little happened.
Now AI may follow a similar trajectory — except this time, companies are shaping the battlefield in advance.
The Trump Factor
AI regulation has become a partisan and strategic issue.
The Trump administration has reportedly favored more libertarian approaches to AI governance — positions closer to OpenAI’s federal-first model.
There have also been efforts to weaken state-level AI laws to prevent fragmented restrictions across the country.
Meanwhile, Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, has consistently advocated for tighter AI oversight.
The divide is ideological:
- One camp prioritizes speed, scale, and U.S. dominance.
- The other emphasizes safety, guardrails, and long-term systemic risk.
Political Pressure Is Mounting
AI is not just a technology issue anymore. It’s an economic and social flashpoint.
Concerns are rising around:
- Large-scale job displacement
- Rapid automation of white-collar roles
- Power consumption of massive AI data centers
- Energy costs shifting to taxpayers or infrastructure systems
Recent comments from AI executives — including predictions that most white-collar tasks could be automated within 12 to 18 months — have amplified political anxiety.
Meanwhile, energy demands from AI infrastructure have become a serious policy issue, with reports that the government may push tech companies to shoulder more electricity costs.
Add to that Bill Ackman’s $2 billion bet on Meta’s AI investments, and it becomes clear:
Capital markets are also choosing sides.
What This Really Means
This is no longer just about AI models.
It’s about:
- Who writes the rules
- Who defines “safe”
- Who controls the narrative in Washington
- And who benefits from federal vs state frameworks
The AI race is now a political arms race.
And super PACs are the new battleground.
Conclusion
For an industry that claimed to welcome regulation, AI companies are now investing tens — and potentially hundreds — of millions to shape it.
That doesn’t necessarily mean they oppose oversight.
It means they want control over how that oversight is designed.
The real question isn’t whether AI will be regulated.
It’s who will engineer the regulation first.
