OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Obama Attacks Trump Over AI Regulation Approach

7 sources · updated 2026-09-23
Left 50% Center 50% Right 0%
1 left · 1 center · 0 right

What happened

On Monday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC that the Trump administration will not grant artificial intelligence developers a federal "liability shield," saying labs "need to take responsibility for themselves" and that "it is humans who are responsible, not the AI." The same day, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that the Department of Justice and other law enforcement agencies "will rein things in if we have to," while adding he will "only encourage" AI development and calling current safety alarms a "hoax." Those remarks followed Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei's call for paced frontier-model development and matching government requirements — a call endorsed by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Elon Musk — after former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon resigned warning that labs are "gambling with our lives." The White House has relied on a June executive order asking firms to voluntarily evaluate "covered frontier models" before broad release. On Friday, former President Barack Obama told a Colgate University audience that "government has to be regulating this," warning AI could be "chaotic and potentially catastrophic" if left to market incentives and lawsuits.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 5 articles

3 of 3 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 3
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: President Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Scott Bessent and Barack Obama
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 1 of 3
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: social media post
Credits another outlet 0 of 3
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 3
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 21, 16:46 UTC by CNBC, naming its source. First document in the first report, from CNBC (social media post).
Not counted 2
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

The administration's refusal to immunize AI labs from harm never appears in right-leaning coverage of Monday's AI fight. Left-leaning coverage is simply more complete on that policy call, treating Bessent's CNBC remark that developers must take responsibility rather than expect a "liability shield" as the day's news. Breitbart instead follows Obama attacking a sue-them-later model, so that reader never hears the Treasury secretary reject legal protection. Left-leaning coverage leads with that refusal and with Trump's promise of a Justice Department backstop if needed. Right-leaning coverage leads instead with Obama insisting government has to regulate AI, not wait on lawsuits, and analogizing it to airlines and drug companies. Which AI companies asked Washington for a liability shield, and from which harms?
Bottom line

Breitbart never reported Bessent's CNBC rejection of a liability shield for AI labs and ran Obama's attack on Trump instead.

The receipts — 2 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • A June executive order asked companies to give the government access up to 30 days before a broad release of covered frontier models numberin CNBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Amodei called on governments to require frontier companies to give third-party experts employee-level access to evaluate safety contextin Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets framed the administration as refusing both legal immunity for AI labs and the slowdown industry leaders had requested, while dismissing insider warnings as a hoax. They highlighted Bessent's line that labs "can slow down any time they want to" and Trump's claim that safety concerns are "more of a Hoax than even that of RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA" and climate change, set against Coxon's resignation and Amodei's pacing plan. Coverage stressed Trump's growth-first slogan "Whoever wins AI, WINS!" and his earlier assertion that the only needed guardrail is a "STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT," presenting a White House that cites existing "CRIMINAL and REGULATORY power" rather than new rules.
The Right View
Breitbart cast the moment as Obama attacking Trump's free-market AI stance. It quoted Obama arguing there is "no replacement for an effective government regulatory structure," that letting firms self-police because they fear lawsuits "is not how we treat airlines, or drug companies, or food companies," and that Trump has treated regulation as "for losers," leaving a multi-year gap. The piece noted Trump's weekend announcement of an "AI Force" and czar and his Monday pledge that law enforcement will step in if necessary, portraying the administration as protecting U.S. lead and growth rather than accepting Obama's call for tighter constraints.
Our Take (balanced)
The left's strongest argument is that frontier labs and a departing insider are themselves asking for pacing and oversight — Coxon said they are "gambling with our lives" — yet the administration labeled those warnings a hoax and offered only possible later DOJ action without a liability shield. The right's strongest argument is that refusing a shield assigns responsibility to the builders, that the government already has "tremendous CRIMINAL and REGULATORY power," and that a forced slowdown would undercut a U.S. lead Trump treats as decisive. The central unresolved tension is whether those insider risk claims warrant preemptive federal constraints on a technology both sides treat as strategically vital, or whether liability and existing enforcement suffice as capabilities race ahead.

7 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.