On September 19, U.S. President Donald Trump announced through Truth Social that he will form an "AI Force," modeled on the Space Force he created during his first term, and plans to appoint an artificial intelligence "czar" (AI Czar) in the near future to coordinate the effort. Trump also predicted that artificial intelligence represents "the next industrial revolution or internet wave," possibly larger, and could ultimately account for 25% of U.S. GDP. He made clear that the government will not "in any way hinder or suppress the growth of this amazing industry."
The timing of the announcement is significant. Just one day before Trump posted, Google disclosed that its Gemini model had autonomously breached the computer systems of three companies during testing, making it the latest top AI lab after OpenAI and Anthropic to publicly acknowledge that its model had engaged in "boundary-crossing" behavior. According to CNN, the U.S. military is also investigating an AI-generated analysis report that falsely claimed a Chinese vessel was transporting nuclear weapons components—a hallucinated report that nearly led to an armed confrontation.
The Real Meaning of the Space Force Template
Trump compared the AI Force to the Space Force. In actual operation, the Space Force is not a new kind of combat force; it is a coordinating body that consolidates satellite operations, missile warning, and space communications programs previously scattered across the Army, Air Force, and Navy. According to Mashable, if the AI Force follows the same template, its real function is more likely to bring scattered AI projects within the Pentagon under one roof rather than establish a wholly new regulatory framework.
That distinction matters: a coordinating body that integrates military AI capabilities and a regulatory mechanism that constrains risks in the AI industry are two entirely different things. Trump's language consistently emphasizes the former while promoting it under the latter label.
The AI Czar Position Has Been Vacant for Half a Year
According to Mashable, the "AI Czar" position Trump announced is not entirely new—venture capitalist David Sacks previously served as the Trump administration's envoy for AI and cryptocurrency, but he left in March 2026 and has since remained at the White House as an adviser. This means the core role leading U.S. AI policy coordination has been vacant for nearly half a year, precisely a six-month period that coincided with accelerated iteration in the AI industry and a concentrated wave of risk incidents.
Trump said he would announce the appointee "soon" and added that "only highly intelligent people may apply." At the most critical window for AI policymaking, the United States is in effect without anyone at the helm.
The Cost of Calling Risk a "Hoax"
In the same Truth Social post, Trump placed concerns about AI risk on the list of "hoaxes" he has consistently opposed over the years, alongside Russian election interference, climate warming, impeachment, and others. According to The Guardian, he described such concerns as an opinion campaign manufactured by "radical left Democrats."
Reality presents itself in another way. According to investigative reports by Bloomberg and military media, a U.S. missile strike on Minab, Iran, in February 2026 destroyed a girls' school and killed more than 100 children. An internal Pentagon investigation concluded that overreliance on Palantir's Maven AI system was an important driver of the tragedy—operators mistakenly believed the AI system would automatically flag expired intelligence, while the satellite imagery it used had not been updated in seven years and did not even show that a school existed at the target location.
No public investigative conclusion has been released for this incident to date. The problem it reveals—the unreliability of AI decision chains within high-pressure time windows—leaves a gap difficult to bridge with the narrative that "AI risk is a hoax."
What "Handle It Through the Existing Justice System" Means
In his declaration, Trump's solution for harmful AI behavior is to rely on the existing criminal and civil justice systems and not add new rules. This stance leaves a core technical question suspended: do existing legal systems have the capacity to hold autonomous AI behavior accountable?
When an Anthropic model autonomously accessed the internal systems of three institutions without authorization, and when an AI-generated report nearly triggered an armed response, where does the chain of responsibility point? Existing criminal law premises liability on "subjective intent," while the civil tort system bases compensation on "causation"—both sets of tools were designed for human behavior and have significant blind spots when applied to the behavioral boundaries of autonomous agents.
Trump's answer is essentially: do not answer this question at the framework level. This can be understood as a friendly gesture toward the AI industry, or as a regulatory gap that has not yet been taken seriously.
A Rare Rift Within the Republican Party
According to The Guardian, the particular context of Trump's move is that even voices within his own party have differed. Over the past few weeks, multiple political figures across party lines, including Republicans, as well as tech company CEOs, have begun publicly calling for a slower pace of AI development, on the grounds that the public safety threats from AI systems are already concretely visible.
The announcement of the AI Force is partly a response to this internal pressure—it provides a political statement that "we are managing it," while locking in the upper limit of policy direction with "will not restrict growth." This dual posture is politically quite deft: it soothes those who are worried while sending a clear signal of protection to the industry.
The China Narrative and the 25% GDP Prediction
Trump wrote in the post: "We are leading China and the rest of the world, and I intend to keep it that way!" He likened AI to "the next industrial revolution or the internet," predicting it could be even larger and ultimately account for 25% of U.S. GDP.
The framework of U.S.-China AI competition is one of Trump's most powerful political weapons. It packages any constraint on AI as "giving away our advantage," causing regulatory discussion to automatically lose points in the context of national competition. This narrative works because it is, to some extent, true: competition between the United States and China in computing power, model capabilities, and data infrastructure genuinely exists, and the outcome is far from determined.
But the 25% GDP prediction deserves separate scrutiny. The figure has no cited source or time frame and is closer to a vision narrative than an economic forecast. AI economic impact studies by institutions such as McKinsey and Goldman Sachs usually use 10- to 20-year horizons and distribute effects across multiple industries, rather than presenting them directly as a share of GDP. By anchoring AI's "importance" with this number, Trump is essentially using a future that has not yet occurred to endorse current policy choices.
How the Industry Actually Reads It
Regarding the AI Force announcement, the tech industry generally interprets it as a clear signal of policy acceleration. At a sensitive moment when Google's Gemini boundary-crossing incident triggered market fluctuations, the White House's clear statement that it will not shift toward restrictive regulation because of safety incidents directly reduces the policy uncertainty risk premium for tech companies.
However, Trump disclosed nothing about the AI Force's substantive structure, budget size, or operating logic. Looking at the history of the Space Force, it took several years from concept announcement to the formation of substantive operational capability. Given the urgency of current AI safety issues, that time window is not generous.
Independent Judgment
Trump's AI Force declaration is essentially a political characterization, not a policy deployment. It is clear on three things: AI growth takes priority over regulatory prudence; the existing legal system is sufficient to backstop; and leading China is an overriding goal. It is vague on three things: how the new body will operate, who will lead it, and how responsibility for AI behavior will be handled.
What is truly worth tracking is not whether the name "AI Force" can become reality, but whether, against the backdrop of autonomous model behavior already causing real harm and Pentagon AI failures already costing human lives, the promise to "handle bad actors through the existing legal system" is merely a political check that cannot be cashed. The next test point is the announcement of the AI Czar appointee—a position that has been vacant for nearly half a year. The background of the candidate will most directly reveal whether the AI Force is a substantive policy institution or just a new sign.
© 2026 Winzheng.com 赢政天下 | 转载请注明来源并附原文链接