Ex-White House Adviser Calls AI Safety ‘New Climate Change’

Six days after President Trump’s order asking companies to voluntarily submit powerful AI models up to 30 days before release for federal testing, David Sacks called AI safety the ‘new Climate Change’ on X.

David Sacks reposted on X on Monday, calling AI safety the ‘new Climate Change’ six days after President Trump signed an executive order asking AI companies to voluntarily submit their most powerful models for federal safety testing up to 30 days before public release.

The executive order directs federal agencies to develop safety benchmarks, assess models for cyber capabilities and risks, and strengthen defenses for critical infrastructure. The order requests voluntary submissions and does not impose a pre-release filing requirement.

Sacks served as White House special adviser for AI and crypto and now advises the administration through the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. He was involved in crafting policy that led to the order. In recent posts he described heightened AI risk warnings as ‘Hollywood storytelling’ and called safety advocates a ‘Doomer Industrial Complex.’

He has been active on crypto policy as well. Sacks helped move the CLARITY Act through its early legislative stages and remains involved as the bill advances in the Senate. He also took part in an administration effort that supported the GENIUS Act, the U.S. stablecoin framework that became law in 2025.

Sacks’ remarks add to a public contrast within the administration between the formal policy asking for voluntary pre-release testing and a senior adviser who has criticized broad safety narratives. Administration officials say the voluntary testing and benchmarks are intended to reduce harms from advanced AI systems and to provide agencies with tools to evaluate risks before models are deployed.

Policymakers, industry leaders and researchers continue to debate how to balance innovation, national security and public safety in AI development. The discussion includes differing views on whether stricter oversight would prevent systemic risks or amount to regulatory overreach.

Articles by this author