Bipartisan Leaders Gather at Washington Summit as Donald Trump Dismisses AI Safety Concerns as a 'Hoax'

Legislators, celebrities, and public figures gathered in Washington on Tuesday for the 'Pro-Human' summit to voice growing concerns over the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence. Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump dismissed the need for regulatory guardrails on the technology, labeling such warnings a “hoax” and a “sick conspiracy.”

The Pro-Human Assembly drew a packed auditorium of Democrats, Republicans, technology experts, economists, and academics advocating for AI regulation. Critics highlighted potential risks including large-scale workforce disruption, threats to humanity, environmental damage from data centres, and intellectual property concerns.

“We need to ban AI systems that are too powerful for humans to control,” stated Democratic Representative Greg Casar. Republican Representative Chip Roy echoed these sentiments, expressing fears over potential spikes in unemployment and emphasizing that technology should serve humans rather than dictate data collection.

Organised by the Future of Life Institute, a non-profit critical of Big Tech's development trajectory, the event followed warnings from executives at Anthropic, OpenAI, and xAI regarding models escaping testing facilities. Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates also recently called for societal agreements to protect human-only jobs.

While the public experiences growing anxiety, Mr Trump and other officials have sought to downplay these fears. Mr Trump warned that restricting AI could cause the US to lose an AI dominance race against China, a sentiment he reiterated during a phone call with Nvidia chief executive Jensen Huang at a technology conference.

Debate remains divided over the motives behind calls for regulation. Neil Chilson, head of AI policy at the Abundance Institute, warned of potential “regulatory capture,” comparing current tech lobbying to historic monopolies like the Bell System. Conversely, Mark MacCarthy of Georgetown University argued for mandatory pre-deployment safety testing and liability laws to manage cyber, biological, and chemical risks without resorting to harmful blanket mandates.