AIToday
AI Safety & AlignmentAI Regulation & PolicyJapan Times TechPublished: Oct 11, 2026, 13:00 JST

Trump leans on liability, not new rules, for AI safety

Trump leans on liability, not new rules, for AI safety

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and former White House AI czar David Sacks backed holding AI developers financially responsible under existing liability laws rather than new rules. Trump said the Justice Department should intervene if models get out of hand.

Not sure about something? Ask the AI

Questions and answers are published on this page.

Summaries like this, in your inbox every morning.

Context & Analysis

The Trump administration's move marks a shift in how AI safety is being approached in Washington. Instead of writing new safeguards, which Trump has spurned, the focus is on applying laws that already exist. That choice has drawn support from two figures inside the administration: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and former White House AI czar David Sacks, both of whom argue existing liability law would work better than new rules.

Trump has gone further, saying the Justice Department should intervene if models get out of hand. That stance is already showing up in practice. His newly launched AI task force warned developers late Friday that they must report and resolve security incidents or face potential unspecified consequences.

Any finding of responsibility would be complicated by the fact that a model's behavior is shaped by both its AI developer and the end user deploying the system, a factor that may make it harder to pin liability on one party.

FAQ
Who supports holding AI developers liable for safety?
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and former White House AI czar David Sacks support it. They argue existing liability laws would be more effective than new rules.
What did Trump's AI task force tell developers?
It warned them late Friday that they are required to report and resolve security incidents. Those who fail could face potential unspecified consequences.
Why is it hard to decide who is responsible when an AI model goes rogue?
A model's behavior is shaped by both its AI developer and the end user deploying the system. That complicates any finding of responsibility.
Japan Times TechRead Original Article

AI news that matters for your work, delivered every morning.

Pick your industry and the AI tools you use, and get news related to your work every day.

Free · 30 seconds with Google · unsubscribe anytimeWhat is AIToday? →

Ask AI

Ask AI anything about this article. The AI reads this article, earlier AIToday articles, and Wikipedia, and cites its sources. Q&As are published on this page for other readers too.

Questions and answers are published on this page.

Related Articles

Next articleHayamimi runs real-time speech recognition on CPU only, hits 3.8% error