The AI Power Council: Trump Assembles Tech’s Titans to Shape America’s Future
The most consequential technology policy decision of the decade just happened in plain sight.
President Trump announced the formation of a 24-member AI advisory council that will shape American artificial intelligence strategy for years to come. The co-chairs alone tell the story: David Sacks, the PayPal mafia veteran turned venture capitalist, will lead alongside representatives from the three companies that essentially control modern computing.
The headline names: Mark Zuckerberg (Meta), Larry Ellison (Oracle), and Jensen Huang (NVIDIA).
Think about what this means. The CEO who built the world’s largest social media empire. The billionaire who created the database infrastructure powering global commerce. The engineer whose chips train virtually every major AI model. Together, in one room, advising the President on AI policy.
This isn’t just an advisory board. It’s the formation of America’s AI ruling class.
The Council’s Composition: Power Concentrated
The 24-member council represents a deliberate selection of the most powerful figures in technology. Beyond the headline names, the roster includes:
- Elon Musk (xAI, Tesla, SpaceX) — Though his relationship with Trump is complicated, his inclusion acknowledges xAI’s growing influence
- Satya Nadella (Microsoft) — The cloud computing kingpin whose partnership with OpenAI dominates the AI landscape
- Sundar Pichai (Google/Alphabet) — Controlling the world’s largest search engine and most advanced AI research organization
- Tim Cook (Apple) — The device manufacturer whose chips and platforms reach billions
- Brad Smith (Microsoft President) — Adding additional Microsoft representation for cloud and enterprise AI
- Arvind Krishna (IBM) — The legacy tech giant’s bet on enterprise AI and quantum computing
- Lisa Su (AMD) — NVIDIA’s only serious competitor in AI chips
- Marc Benioff (Salesforce) — Enterprise software and AI integration
The pattern is clear: this council includes everyone who matters in AI infrastructure, from chips to cloud to consumer platforms. The only major absence is OpenAI’s Sam Altman—perhaps a deliberate snub given his increasingly tense relationship with Microsoft and the administration.
David Sacks as Co-Chair: The Insider’s Insider
Choosing David Sacks as co-chair signals Trump’s priorities. Sacks isn’t a household name like Zuckerberg or Musk, but in Silicon Valley, he’s legendary.
The PayPal mafia veteran—alongside Musk, Peter Thiel, and Reid Hoffman—built the payment infrastructure that became the foundation of modern fintech. His venture firm, Craft Ventures, has backed some of the most successful enterprise software companies. And critically, he’s been a vocal Trump supporter in tech circles where such allegiance is rare.
Sacks brings three things the administration needs:
Technical credibility — He understands AI at a product and infrastructure level, not just as a political issue.
Valley relationships — He can bridge the gap between Trump’s populist base and tech’s liberal establishment.
Policy sophistication — His podcast and writing show deep thinking about AI regulation, national security, and economic implications.
The message: this council will be run by someone who understands both Washington and Silicon Valley.
What This Council Actually Does
The advisory council’s mandate spans the full range of AI policy:
1. National Security Framework
The council will advise on AI’s role in defense, intelligence, and cybersecurity. This includes:
- Military AI applications and autonomous weapons policy
- Intelligence gathering and analysis capabilities
- Cyber defense and critical infrastructure protection
- Supply chain security for AI chips and components
With Ellison’s Oracle managing government databases and Huang’s NVIDIA chips powering defense AI, the council has direct operational expertise.
2. Regulatory Architecture
Perhaps the council’s most consequential role: designing the regulatory framework that will govern AI development.
This includes questions like:
- Should frontier AI models require federal licensing?
- What safety standards should apply to AI deployment?
- How do we balance innovation with risk mitigation?
- What liability regime applies when AI causes harm?
The tech CEOs on the council will be writing the rules they themselves must follow. This is regulatory capture in its purest form—or enlightened self-regulation, depending on your perspective.
3. Economic Competitiveness
The council will advise on maintaining American AI leadership against Chinese competition. This includes:
- Export controls on AI chips and technology
- Investment in domestic AI infrastructure
- Immigration policy for AI talent
- Trade policy and technology transfer
With Huang’s NVIDIA at the center of the chip war, and Zuckerberg’s Meta running global AI research, the council has direct stakes in these decisions.
4. Infrastructure and Energy
AI’s power requirements are becoming a national issue. The council will advise on:
- Data center location and energy sourcing
- Nuclear power expansion for AI compute
- Grid modernization to handle AI load
- Environmental impact and carbon considerations
Ellison’s Oracle and Huang’s NVIDIA both have massive data center investments. They’ll be advising on policies that directly affect their bottom lines.
Related: While the AI council shapes policy, Fannie Mae just opened the $4T mortgage market to Bitcoin—showing how quickly AI and crypto are transforming traditional finance.
nn
The Conflicts of Interest Are the Point
Critics will note the obvious: council members stand to benefit enormously from the policies they help shape. Zuckerberg’s Meta is racing to deploy AI across its platforms. Ellison’s Oracle is pivoting to AI cloud services. Huang’s NVIDIA literally sells the picks and shovels of the AI gold rush.
This isn’t a bug. It’s a feature.
The Trump administration’s philosophy appears to be: the people who built the AI industry should guide its regulation. They have the expertise, the resources, and the incentive to get it right. Outsiders—academics, activists, bureaucrats—lack the operational knowledge to regulate effectively.
This is a bet on technocratic competence over democratic deliberation. Whether it’s a good bet depends on whether you trust these specific billionaires to prioritize national interest over personal gain.
What This Means for AI Development
The council’s formation sends several signals to the AI industry:
1. The Regulatory Freeze Is Over
For years, AI companies operated in a regulatory gray zone. The Biden administration’s executive orders created frameworks, but enforcement was uncertain. The Trump council suggests a new approach: clear rules written by industry insiders.
This could accelerate deployment by reducing uncertainty—or it could create a compliance nightmare if rules are stricter than expected.
2. National Security Trumps Innovation
The council’s national security mandate suggests AI will be treated increasingly as critical infrastructure, like telecommunications or defense. This means:
- More scrutiny of foreign investment in AI companies
- Potential restrictions on open-source AI models
- Greater government involvement in frontier model development
- Pressure to align AI capabilities with defense needs
3. The China Competition Is Central
Every major AI policy decision will be viewed through the lens of US-China competition. The council’s composition reflects this: every member runs companies with significant China exposure or competition.
Export controls, investment restrictions, and talent policies will prioritize maintaining American advantage over pure market efficiency.
4. Energy Is the New Constraint
The infrastructure and energy focus signals recognition that AI development is hitting physical limits. The council will likely push for:
- Expedited permitting for data centers
- Nuclear power expansion
- Grid infrastructure investment
- Potentially relaxed environmental regulations for AI facilities
Related: The council includes major AI players, but OpenAI was notably absent after the Anthropic leak revealed how fast AI capabilities are advancing.
The Missing Voices
For all its power, the council has notable absences:
Sam Altman (OpenAI): The most visible AI CEO isn’t included. This may reflect his tense relationship with Microsoft, his controversial departure and return at OpenAI, or simply that his warnings about AI existential risk don’t align with the administration’s pro-growth stance.
Academic Researchers: No representatives from major AI research universities (Stanford, MIT, Carnegie Mellon). The council is purely industry.
Civil Society: No consumer advocates, labor representatives, or civil liberties organizations. The voices warning about AI’s societal risks aren’t in the room.
International Perspective: All members run American companies. There’s no representation from allies’ tech sectors or international organizations.
These absences shape the council’s perspective. It will optimize for American industry competitiveness, not global cooperation or risk mitigation.
The Historical Precedent
This isn’t the first time government has turned to industry for technology policy. Historical parallels include:
The Manhattan Project: Scientists and engineers given extraordinary resources and autonomy to develop nuclear weapons. The result: rapid innovation with profound unintended consequences.
The Space Race: NASA worked closely with aerospace contractors to reach the moon. The result: American technological dominance and massive economic spillover.
The Internet’s Creation: DARPA funded researchers who built the protocols that became the internet. The result: transformative technology developed with public oversight.
The Financial Crisis Response: Treasury turned to Wall Street executives to design bank bailouts. The result: stabilization, but also accusations of regulatory capture.
The AI council could follow any of these paths. The composition suggests it’s aiming for Space Race-style mobilization rather than financial crisis-style insider dealing—but the risk of capture is real.
What Happens Next
The council’s first meeting is reportedly scheduled for April. Key early decisions to watch:
Export Control Policy: Will the council recommend tightening or loosening restrictions on AI chip exports to China? NVIDIA has massive revenue at stake.
Open Source AI: Will frontier models be required to keep weights private, or will open-source development continue? Meta has bet heavily on open models.
Federal AI Investment: Will the council push for massive government investment in AI infrastructure, or rely on private capital? This affects Oracle, Microsoft, and Amazon’s cloud businesses.
Antitrust Enforcement: Will the administration continue aggressive antitrust action against big tech, or give the council members a pass? This is the elephant in the room.
The Bottom Line
Trump’s AI council represents the formalization of something that was already happening: the concentration of AI decision-making power in a handful of tech billionaires. The only difference is now it’s official.
Zuckerberg, Ellison, and Huang aren’t just running companies. They’re shaping the rules that will govern the most transformative technology of our time. The council gives them a direct line to presidential power.
This could accelerate American AI development, streamline regulation, and help win the competition with China. It could also entrench incumbents, suppress competition, and prioritize corporate interests over public good.
The council’s success depends on whether these specific billionaires can look beyond their quarterly earnings to see the bigger picture. Whether they can regulate themselves effectively. Whether they can put national interest ahead of stock price.
History suggests mixed results on all counts.
But one thing is certain: the decisions made by this council will shape not just AI development, but the future of human civilization. The stakes couldn’t be higher. The concentration of power couldn’t be more extreme.
Welcome to the AI oligarchy. It’s now official.
Related: Read our analysis of Microsoft’s 900MW infrastructure grab—the compute power that will fuel the AI development this council oversees.
Sources
- White House Announcement – AI Advisory Council Formation (March 27, 2026)
- Reuters AI News — Policy and industry coverage
- White House Briefing Room — Official statements
- Craft Ventures — David Sacks background
- Meta — Zuckerberg AI initiatives
- Oracle — Ellison government cloud contracts
- NVIDIA — Huang AI policy positions
Related: As the AI council shapes policy, Google’s TurboQuant breakthrough demonstrates how software innovation can disrupt hardware assumptions.
