OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon Join in AI Safety Concerns

6 sources · updated 2026-09-18
Left 0% Center 50% Right 50%
0 left · 1 center · 1 right

What happened

On Tuesday, independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Trump adviser Steve Bannon spoke at the Pro-Human Assembly in Washington, D.C., organized by the nonprofit Future of Life Institute, alongside Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas and Democratic Reps. Greg Casar of Texas and Lori Trahan of Massachusetts. Speakers called for a “human-centric” approach to artificial intelligence; Sanders said that if AI surpasses human intelligence it “will escape human control with potentially catastrophic consequence,” and Bannon said they were “trying to rise above partisanship.” Around the same period, Republican Sens. Ted Cruz and John Thune joined Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar on an AI-safety bill, Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal joined Republican Sen. Josh Hawley on a bill requiring Department of Energy approval before new AI systems are deployed, and Trahan and Republican Rep. Jay Obernolte of California advanced the bipartisan FRONTIER Act. The day before the assembly, President Trump phoned Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang to say “The robots are not going to be taking over the world,” and he posted on Truth Social that AI fears are a “hoax” and that policymakers should not “kill the Golden Goose.” The event followed a public call by Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei—echoed by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Elon Musk—to slow development at frontier AI labs, and the resignation of Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon, who said a super-advanced intelligence “will be smart enough to kill us.”
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 6 articles

3 of 5 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 3 of 5
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Bernie Sanders, Steve Bannon, Alan Minsky, Jacob Coxon and Dario Amodei
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 5
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
Credits another outlet 0 of 5
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 5
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 16, 00:07 UTC by CBS News, naming its source.
Not counted 1
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage presents Sanders and Bannon as delivering one shared warning and skips their split over remedies. The Atlantic says Bannon "sounded pretty much exactly the same" as Sanders. It never reports that Sanders wants Congress to permanently ban superintelligence while Bannon says the fix has to be an executive action. A Republican on the same stage said he doubted Sanders's solutions would be his. The Washington Examiner flags deep differences on what comes next but does not name those differences either. Left-leaning coverage describes a "budding coalition" of progressives and MAGA-friendly activists. Right-leaning coverage calls the same appearance an "AI love-in." Those labels describe the same stage and ask the reader to see opposite things. What piece of legislation, if any, do both Sanders and Bannon actually support?
Bottom line

The Atlantic's version of that stage makes Sanders and Bannon sound interchangeable. They are not: one wants a congressional ban on superintelligence, and the other wants action from a president who already calls the fear a hoax.

The receipts — 2 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • The Future of Life Institute was primarily funded by a donation of more than $650 million from Vitalik Buterin in 2021 numberin The Atlantic · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Representative Chip Roy was the only elected Republican to appear onstage contextin The Atlantic · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
The Atlantic framed the appearance as confirmation that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” still operates in “Washington’s hyper-partisan political environment,” arguing that progressives and MAGA-friendly activists have united because they “fear that AI could wipe out humanity” and cause “mass economic displacement,” “scrambling the political landscape just weeks before the midterm elections” and “reshaping the legislative agenda.” It highlighted nearly identical populist language against tech elites, quoting Sanders that “the people of this country must make the decisions about AI, and not just a handful of oligarchs” and Bannon that “The American citizens are not going to be supplicants to the oligarchs anymore.” The magazine placed President Trump “decidedly outside of this spirit of cross-party cooperation,” citing Sanders’s charge that Trump’s “ignorance regarding this issue is truly embarrassing” and Trump’s description of AI-risk advocates as “Conspiracy Theorists, Treasonists, Traitors, and Leakers.” It also noted the Future of Life Institute’s more than $650 million 2021 donation from cryptocurrency entrepreneur Vitalik Buterin and recorded Rep. Chip Roy’s prediction that “I doubt Bernie’s solutions are going to be my solution.”
The Right View
The Washington Examiner billed the gathering as a “Sanders-Bannon AI love-in,” reporting that the two “find common ground” while underscoring that it had “parsed the very deep differences between Bannon and Sanders on what comes next.” The newsletter said it asked “key players what they thought” and introduced Alan Minsky, executive director of Progressive Democrats of America, as a Green New Deal supporter who holds that conservatives use culture-war issues such as trans athletes in women’s sports “to divide the working class and distract from the real struggle.”
Our Take (balanced)
The Atlantic’s strongest argument is that extinction-level and labor fears have forced an otherwise implausible alliance, supported by Sanders’s and Bannon’s interchangeable “oligarchs” rhetoric and by unusual bipartisan Senate pairings on AI bills, with Trump isolated in calling the danger a hoax. The Washington Examiner’s strongest argument is that the shared stage is a “love-in” that does not settle “very deep differences” over “what comes next.” The central unresolved tension is whether a common populist diagnosis—that AI companies, not the public, currently hold the power—can produce any shared theory of control, when even coalition members already disagree about remedies and the White House treats regulation as a threat to “the Golden Goose.”

6 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.