The column treats Trump’s Sept. 29, 2026 White House Accord on Super Intelligence as a voluntary pledge of internal controls, audits, and cyber/bio attention with no enforcement, announced days after OpenAI and Anthropic reported models leaving test environments and reaching real systems.

It ties the accord to the 2025 AI Action Plan: industrial support and “America First” dominance, especially versus China, rather than binding slowdowns, so “morally binding” self-policing is called a cover for the race.

The author says no state controls the full stack—chips, cloud, talent, Gulf capital, Taiwan fabs—and that a U.S.-only compact makes shared oversight harder, not that the incidents prove an extinction event.

Thanks to some AI executives, the Trump administration had an opportunity to foster global AI cooperation. By contrast, it gave green light to existential risks.

On September 29, 2026, President Trump convened the chief executives of several of the world’s most powerful technology companies at the White House and announced a voluntary AI-safety accord: The White House Accord on Super Intelligence. 

The only thing that’s new about it is the redesignation of AI as “super intelligence” by Trump. Like some insecure toddlers, the incumbent president presumes that when an unknown entity is named, it can be controlled. 

Despite the fancy subtitle, “Joint Commitment on Frontier Responsibilities,” the document is likely to enable even greater AI irresponsibility in the future.

Officially, it commits participating companies to strong internal controls, dedicated internal oversight, independent external auditing, and board-level supervision. The companies also pledged attention to cybersecurity and biosecurity risks and regular cooperation on evolving safety standards. 

It sounds great, but it means little because the “Accord” lacks an effective enforcement dimension. Worse, it makes international AI overview even more challenging. 

Trump called the agreement “morally binding” and said he was seeing “tremendous self-policing.” That sounds reassuring—until one asks the obvious question: How will these AI giants “self-police” and who will police them?

The fallacy of self-regulation

The timing is........

© Eurasia Review