Donald Trump made a series of moves last week that formalize the merger of American state power with AI corporate interests. The sequence matters: a CEO-drafted voluntary pact, a Pentagon taskforce staffed by tech founders, and the appointment of the intelligence chief as AI czar. Each alone is a lobbying win. Together they constitute a structural realignment of who governs AI in the United States — and the answer is the people who sell it. The centerpiece is a 'morally binding' agreement signed by Trump and six AI CEOs — Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jensen Huang, and Dario Amodei among them. Zuckerberg personally guided the drafting of the agreement, according to Semafor, after a conversation with House Speaker Mike Johnson at the US state dinner for Xi Jinping. The Meta CEO circulated a draft in advance; Huang endorsed it. Trump compared the pact to a constitution, apparently unaware that constitutions are legally binding and his agreement is not. The framework amounts to 'tremendous self-policing' — the regulated writing the regulations. Musk's return to government work came via Project Meridian, a Pentagon taskforce announced by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Musk joins Palmer Luckey and Emil Michael to produce a 120-day report on achieving 'absolute technological dominance on the next-generation battlefield.' Musk's participation followed his renaming of a subsidiary from SpaceXAI to SpaceXSI — instant compliance with Trump's decree that all government documents replace 'artificial intelligence' with 'super intelligence.' The rebrand is cosmetic. The power consolidation is not. The appointment of Jay Clayton, Director of National Intelligence, as AI czar sends the clearest signal. Clayton replaces David Sacks, a venture capitalist who maintained direct financial stakes in AI companies while serving as a special government employee. Sacks represented Silicon Valley's commercial interests inside the White House. Clayton represents the surveillance state's operational interests. He will hold both roles simultaneously — running US spy agencies while overseeing AI policy — meaning intelligence priorities will shape AI governance globally. For nations dependent on American AI infrastructure, the implications are stark. Trump's decree that government documents render 'artificial intelligence' as 'super intelligence' is minor in isolation but diagnostic of the relationship. The president issues a branding preference; the companies immediately comply. This is not regulation. It is co-branding between state authority and corporate product. One data point cuts against the narrative of AI as economic engine: the US jobs report released Friday shows the majority of hiring is happening in healthcare, not AI. The sector fuels GDP growth and stock market valuations — the companies whose leaders attended Trump's summit are responsible for the majority of the US stock market's growth over the past five years — but it is not driving broad-based job creation. The economy's dependence on AI is a Wall Street phenomenon, not a Main Street one. The structural risk is that these arrangements become self-reinforcing. CEOs who draft their own oversight frameworks have no incentive to tighten them. A spy chief who doubles as AI czar will optimize for intelligence capabilities, not public accountability. A Pentagon taskforce staffed by defense contractors will recommend buying what its members sell. Each node of the arrangement feeds the others, and none faces a democratic check.
