Кто формирует ИИ-политику Трампа: Wired о «мозговом тресте» и споре десяти сторон

Wired has published a piece titled "This Is Donald Trump's AI Brain Trust" — a breakdown of who actually shapes U.S. policy on artificial intelligence under the Donald Trump administration. The report's main conclusion: there is no single center of decision-making, and the internal dispute over the course is not between two camps, but among at least ten competing positions. The piece is built around a remark from one official describing the inner workings of the coordination process.

Not two sides, but ten

The dispute over U.S. AI policy is more complicated than the public picture of "government versus industry" — this is what Wired's source inside the administration points out directly. He stresses that the disagreements cannot be reduced to a simple opposition between supporters and opponents of regulation.

"This is not a two-sided argument, it's a ten-sided argument," a senior administration official told

Wired.

The phrase describes the very mechanics of decision-making. The AI agenda in the White House has no single "owner": the final course takes shape under pressure from many groups at once — advisors, federal agencies, industry representatives, and advocates of tighter oversight. Each "side" pulls policy toward its own set of priorities, and none of them controls the process entirely.

Who is in the "brain trust"?

According to Wired, the AI "brain trust" is not one appointed advisor, but a blurred circle of figures inside the White House, federal agencies, and the tech world close to power. It is their views and bureaucratic weight, combined, that set the direction of American policy in the field of artificial intelligence.

Because of this blurriness, outside observers — companies, allies, and competitors of the U.S. — find it hard to predict decisions. The issues at stake are measured in billions of dollars and years of technological leadership: export controls on advanced chips, rules for powerful models, the balance between the race for supremacy and safety requirements. Wired shows that behind the public statements lies a non-public struggle among these "ten sides."

Why this matters beyond the U.S.

U.S. AI policy has an impact far beyond America — from other countries' access to computing power to global regulatory standards. When the course is set not by a single doctrine but by bargaining among many players, the risk rises of inconsistent or sharply shifting decisions: today one "side" prevails, tomorrow another.

The dispute inside the administration is unfolding against the backdrop of two publicly stated but poorly compatible U.S. goals: preserving leadership in advanced AI development while simultaneously restricting competitors' access — above all China's — to the most powerful chips and models. Different "sides" place the emphasis differently — some bet on deregulation and speed, others insist on control and national security.

For business, this creates a practical planning problem: investments in compute, export contracts, and product strategies have to be built under conditions where the rules can shift along with the balance of power inside the White House. That is precisely why Wired's report is valuable not for individual names, but for the optics themselves: to understand the American AI agenda, one needs to look not at a single "AI czar," but at the entire arrangement of competing forces.

What this means

AI regulation in the U.S. is not a unified strategy, but the result of bureaucratic bargaining. For industry and foreign observers, this means uncertainty: the rules are born at the intersection of a dozen interests, and they are easier to predict if you keep the whole map of influence in mind rather than watch a single public figure. Put simply, American AI regulation currently has no single author.