"Regulation Realism" is an elegant white flag on behalf of bureaucracy
Lawmakers are no longer setting the pace; they are desperately chasing it
Help us beat and replace the mainstream media! Support The Capitalist by becoming a paid subscriber today:
Picture the scene in the Situation Room, not 1962 but 2026: aides hunched over screens, not tracking missiles but monitoring GPU shipments and data-center permits. The technology that once promised to augment human decision-making now races ahead of the deciders themselves.
On March 20, the White House released its National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence—a document that, for all its polished objectives, reads like an elegant white flag on behalf of bureaucracy. The federal government, long accustomed to writing the rules of the game, has quietly acknowledged that the game has changed.
The framework’s core thesis arrives early and without apology: America needs “one federal AI policy, not a 50-state patchwork.” Director Michael Kratsios put it plainly on X the same day: “This gets us there.”
What remains unsaid—but hangs in every paragraph—is the reason such preemption is suddenly urgent.
Sponsored by Goldencrest Metals
JPMorgan Calls It a ‘Core Holding.’ Most Retirement Accounts Hold Zero
If you’re 55 or older and your IRA has no gold — JPMorgan just made that expensive.
They’ve raised their 2026 gold forecast to $6,300. Laid out a credible path to $8,000. And officially called gold a “core holding” — not a crisis hedge, not a speculation. A core holding.
Here’s why that matters if you’re near retirement:
Most Americans hold less than 1% in gold. When that shifts — even slightly — demand collides with limited supply. Prices don’t drift. They reprice. Fast.
Gold already broke $5,000. Already outperformed the S&P 500 in 2026.
If you’re living off your savings — or will be soon — you don’t get to wait for the second leg up before deciding.
See how Americans 55+ are adding gold to their retirement savings right now.
The free 2026 Info Guide shows you:
Why JPMorgan is calling gold a “core holding” for retirement portfolios
What the $6,300 → $8,000 path means for people near retirement
How to add physical gold to your existing IRA or 401(k) — no penalties, no tax hit, done in days
Click here to see how Americans 55+ are protecting their retirement savings with gold.
AI no longer develops in tidy DARPA labs or corporate sandboxes; it proliferates through consumer apps, enterprise tools, and adversarial smuggling rings running out of the most unexpected of places. Just this week the co-founder of American firm Super Micro Computer was busted for smuggling export restricted chips to China.
The technology is already here—embedded in classrooms, boardrooms, campaign war rooms, and Senate staff terminals (which recently greenlit ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot). The issue of grappling with the new “AI world” is already here. Lawmakers are no longer setting the pace; they are chasing it.
Consider the child-safety provisions. The framework calls on Congress to mandate “age-assurance requirements” for platforms likely accessed by minors and to curb risks of sexual exploitation and self-harm. Sensible, even necessary. Yet the language betrays a shift in power dynamics: government is reduced to requesting tools that parents and platforms must implement because the tech itself scales risk beyond adult supervision.
Similarly, on energy infrastructure, the document urges protection for residential ratepayers from electricity-price spikes tied to AI data centers. Again, prudent—but note the framing. The administration is not commanding new power plants or capping compute; it is pleading that builders not punish ordinary households while they scale the very systems that drive economic growth.
Help us beat and replace the mainstream media! Support The Capitalist by becoming a paid subscriber today:
The most revealing passages concern copyright and speech. On training data, the White House states it “believes that training of AI models on copyrighted material does not violate copyright laws” yet defers resolution to the courts. That is not leadership; it is delegation. On speech, the framework insists Congress prevent government from “coercing technology providers, including AI providers, to ban, compel, or alter content based on partisan or ideological agendas.” A welcome bulwark against censorship—but observe the asymmetry. The state, once the presumed arbiter of truth, now asks to be restrained from meddling in the platforms it increasingly relies upon.
Critics—particularly those nostalgic for heavier-handed approaches—will argue this light-touch stance abdicates responsibility. They point to real dangers: deepfakes in elections, algorithmic bias, concentrated compute power. Fair enough. Yet the counterpoint is sharper: Every attempt at comprehensive top-down control with emerging tech has either slowed American progress or pushed development offshore. The framework’s six objectives—child protection, energy equity, free speech, liability reform, innovation acceleration, and national-security hardening—strike a balance that favors builders over bureaucrats. Preempting state regimes is not anti-federalism; it is anti-fragmentation in a domain where speed has been proven to determine dominance.
The document’s true significance lies in what it does not do:
There is no call for a new federal AI agency,
There is no sweeping moratorium,
There is no mandatory safety certifications.
All things that could choke open-source efforts and inhibit the prevalence and growth of American AI dominance.
Instead, it leans into the private sector’s comparative advantage: rapid iteration, massive capital deployment, global talent attraction. The Trump administration understands what previous administrations did not—that trying to fully control AI is like trying to bottle lightning. The smart play is to channel it, not contain it.
Of course, risks remain. A single national standard could entrench incumbents if poorly drafted. Energy demands could still strain grids without parallel infrastructure reform, but adversaries—China chief among them—will exploit any hesitation or faltering missteps in this area and we already have evidence of what that exploitation looks like in practice.
America pioneered the idea of offensive capability drones with the Predator in the War on Terror but two decades later the skies of Ukraine and the Persian Gulf are swarmed by cheap light weight hunter killer drones that are not American and their existence has had global ramifications. The same mistake cannot be made with AI. The stakes are too high.
The latest framework’s realism is its strength: it treats AI as an economic and strategic asset already in motion, not a hypothetical menace to be tamed at some point in the future. This is what NOT “kicking the can down the road” looks like in practice.
In the end, this is less a policy triumph than an intellectual pivot. Washington has stopped pretending it can out-engineer the engineers a final acceptance of what the Crypto industry has been arguing for years. That the real winners will be those who build fastest and smartest under a stable, minimal federal guardrail. That’s the play. Builders, your court.
The Capitalist is a reader-supported publication
Reject Corporate Left Wing Journalism
 | A guest post by
|
I keep hearing about cost, as I move around, I see Costco, Sams Club parking lots full. Cost is subjective, we live within our means. Which means we buy what is on sale, are frugal depending upon how much money we have. I see people wearing designer shoes, iPhone, fancy designer cloths complain about the cost/affordability. DAH!
For the majority of consumers / voters, its all about the "Cost" particularly regarding energy-electric and vast water consumption. There will be political backlash if power providers keep raising rates on consumers same with water management.