Americans are told to trust the judgment of our technology leaders.
They present themselves as innovators, visionaries, and neutral experts — people simply trying to make the world safer and more efficient.
But a growing number of Silicon Valley executives are doing something far more consequential: positioning themselves as unelected regulators of American power.
They speak the language of responsibility.
They warn about risks.
They call for global cooperation, international rules, and "guardrails."
But behind that rhetoric is a consistent pattern — one that puts democratic decision-making second to the preferences of a small, insulated class of tech elites.
Dario Amodei, CEO of artificial intelligence company Anthropic, offers a revealing example of this broader trend.
Amodei presents himself as above politics.
He speaks carefully about safety, responsibility, and protecting humanity from technological harm.
Yet his policy positions consistently point in one direction: slowing American technological deployment, restricting competition, and placing greater authority in the hands of experts rather than voters or markets.
He has pushed for tighter global controls on artificial intelligence development and restrictions on American AI exports — policies that would deliberately limit U.S. technological leadership in the name of caution.
These proposals are framed as prudence.
But they also conveniently align with a worldview that treats American power as something dangerous that must be restrained.
This instinct is not unique to Amodei.
It reflects a broader ideology that has taken hold across much of the tech industry — a belief that innovation should be governed by centralized authority, global frameworks, and elite consensus rather than national interest or democratic accountability.
We've seen this posture before.
Bill Gates built one of the most influential technology companies in history, then leveraged that influence to shape global policy debates on public health, energy, and economic development.
Regardless of one's views on his initiatives, the model is clear: immense private power translating into sweeping public authority, often with limited democratic oversight.
Today's AI leaders appear ready to follow the same path — but with technology far more powerful and far less understood.
What makes this trend particularly concerning is the growing effort by these executives to position themselves as neutral arbiters while advancing highly political agendas.
Companies hire former government officials, fund advocacy networks, and push regulatory frameworks that just happen to favor their own role as gatekeepers of emerging technologies.
That is not neutrality. It's influence — influence exercised without electoral accountability.
The public is told this concentration of authority is necessary because artificial intelligence is too dangerous to be left to open competition.
Yet these same companies continue racing to build increasingly powerful systems, raising billions in funding, securing government contracts, and expanding their market dominance.
The message is contradictory: technology is too risky for society to control, but perfectly safe for a handful of corporations to direct.
This reflects a deeper worldview that has gained traction among certain technology leaders — the belief that experts, guided by abstract theories about long-term global outcomes, should steer society’s direction.
Movements like "effective altruism" argue that complex decisions about humanity's future should be determined by technical analysis rather than democratic debate.
The results, however, have already shown the risks of unchecked moral certainty, as seen in high-profile scandals that exposed the dangers of concentrating power in self-appointed visionaries.
The concern is not any single executive. It is the pattern.
Across the technology sector, powerful leaders increasingly seek to shape national policy, guide global regulation, and define the boundaries of innovation itself.
They frame their ambitions as safety.
They present their authority as expertise.
But the cumulative effect is the gradual transfer of decision-making from citizens and elected governments to private institutions.
America’s strength has always come from open competition, entrepreneurial risk-taking, and democratic control over public policy.
When a small group of technology executives begins to dictate the pace and direction of innovation — particularly in fields as transformative as artificial intelligence — that tradition is put at risk.
If the United States falls behind in emerging technologies, it will not be because Americans lacked the talent or the drive to lead.
It will be because we allowed unelected elites who fear the consequences of innovation to decide its limits.
The future of American technology should be shaped by the American people — not managed by a handful of executives who believe they know better.
Mitch Brown is an Army veteran with extensive experience as a linguist, intelligence and reconnaissance. In the U.S. House, in a legislative role, Mr. Brown eventually began his work on policy for the chair of the Committee on Homeland Security. He was subsequently appointed to serve as deputy White House Liaison for the Department of Labor for the Trump administration. He was additionally tasked with lowering unemployment during COVID-19. Read more Mitch Brown Insider articles — Click Here Now.
© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.