Trump’s AI executive order delay sparks backlash as the Pope calls for human-centered AI

Artificial intelligence is no longer just a topic for tech conferences and research labs. It’s now at the center of global debates about power, security, and what it means to be human. Two very different responses this week highlight that tension: a major teaching document from the Pope calling for strict, human-centered AI rules, and President Trump’s decision to abruptly pull back a long-awaited AI executive order after pressure from tech leaders.

The Pope’s warning: AI is powerful, but not human

Pope Leo’s first major teaching document focuses squarely on artificial intelligence and how it should be governed. Titled Magnifica Humanitas, it frames AI as a new kind of industrial revolution—transformative, fast-moving, and potentially dangerous if left unchecked.

The document stresses a core point: AI is not human. According to the Pope, current AI systems only imitate aspects of intelligence. They lack lived experience, emotions, relationships, and moral agency. In other words, they can process information and generate convincing outputs, but they do not understand the world the way people do.

That distinction matters because it underpins his broader argument: AI must always remain a tool in human hands, not something we treat as a moral actor or decision-maker in its own right.

Disarming AI: keep it away from pure profit and military power

One of the strongest themes in Magnifica Humanitas is the call to “disarm” AI. The Pope argues that AI should be pulled away from narrow military and economic interests that prioritize power and profit over human dignity.

He calls for:

• Stricter regulations on how AI is developed and deployed
• Limits on using AI for warfare or destabilizing cyber operations
• Guardrails to ensure AI doesn’t deepen inequality between the “haves” and “have-nots”

Instead of letting a small group of powerful companies and governments shape AI in their own image, the document urges broader public participation in setting the rules. That includes ethicists, workers, vulnerable communities, and people outside the usual tech and policy circles.

Building ethics in from the start

The Pope also criticizes the idea of building AI first and worrying about ethics later. He argues that moral questions shouldn’t be an afterthought, bolted on once systems are already deployed at scale.

In practical terms, that means designing AI systems to be inclusive and fair from the beginning—who gets to build them, whose data is used, and whose values are reflected in the models. This concern echoes wider debates about AI bias, concentration of power, and the risk that a small group of mostly male tech founders end up controlling a technology that affects billions.

For a deeper dive into how tech elites shape AI power dynamics, you may also want to read this analysis of Elon Musk, OpenAI, and the global AI power struggle.

Inside Trump’s scrapped AI executive order

While the Vatican pushes for stronger global guardrails, the White House is wrestling with its own approach. For months, Trump’s team had been working on an AI executive order meant to put some basic guardrails around advanced AI systems.

The order reportedly focused on a voluntary process that would give the U.S. government early visibility into cutting-edge AI models. Companies would be encouraged—but not required—to share information about powerful systems before they were widely released, especially if they could pose security risks.

A signing ceremony was already scheduled. Then, on the morning it was supposed to happen, everything changed.

Last-minute calls from tech leaders

According to reporting cited in the discussion, President Trump received a series of 11th-hour calls from major tech figures, including SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg, and venture capitalist David Sacks, who previously served as an informal AI adviser to the administration.

David Sacks reportedly warned Trump that the proposed safety vetting process—even though it was framed as voluntary—could eventually become mandatory. In his view, that would slow down U.S. AI development and make the country less competitive in a high-stakes AI race with China.

Shortly after that call, Trump emerged and announced he was pulling the executive order, saying there were aspects he didn’t like. Senior White House officials involved in drafting the order later pushed back, noting that the text explicitly stated it would not create a mandatory process.

Backlash in Washington: who sets AI policy?

The sudden reversal sparked immediate criticism. Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona blasted the move on social media, arguing that the U.S. cannot lead in AI if its policy is effectively determined by whichever billionaire gets the president on the phone last.

Kelly called for a coherent national strategy that:

• Supports innovation
• Protects workers
• Strengthens national security
• Ensures AI benefits the whole country, not just a handful of big tech companies

His response captures a growing concern in Washington: that AI policy is being shaped too heavily by industry voices with direct access to the White House, rather than through a transparent, democratic process.

Is the Trump administration serious about regulating AI?

The episode raises a bigger question: does the current administration actually want to regulate AI, or does it prefer to let the private sector move fast with minimal interference?

On one hand, there are clear signs of concern inside the administration. Officials are reportedly “freaked out” by the pace and capabilities of new AI systems, especially models that could enable offensive cyberattacks on critical infrastructure like banks and hospitals. No administration wants a major AI-driven cyber incident to happen on its watch.

On the other hand, the White House has unusually close ties to Silicon Valley “tech bros” who are wary of anything that might slow innovation. Elon Musk’s early influence, and ongoing relationships with figures like Vice President J.D. Vance, mean that tech entrepreneurs often have a direct line into top decision-makers.

Within the administration, there are also internal tensions. Some, like Pete Hegseth and others involved in defense and security, are reportedly pushing for stricter oversight—especially after disputes between the Pentagon and AI companies like Anthropic. But those voices are competing with industry-aligned advisers who prioritize speed and competitiveness.

Two competing visions for AI’s future

Put side by side, the Pope’s encyclical and the Trump administration’s AI drama reveal two very different visions for the future of AI governance.

On one side is a human-centered, dignity-first approach that treats AI as a powerful tool to be tightly guided by ethics, inclusion, and global responsibility. It worries about concentration of power, widening inequality, and the moral risks of outsourcing decisions to machines.

On the other side is a competition-first approach that sees AI primarily through the lens of geopolitical rivalry and economic advantage. In that view, the biggest risk is falling behind countries like China, and any regulation that might slow innovation is treated with suspicion.

Both sides agree on one thing: AI is moving incredibly fast, and the decisions made now will shape security, work, and daily life for years to come. The real question is who gets to make those decisions—and whose values will be built into the systems that increasingly run our world.

Why this matters for everyone, not just policymakers

Even if you’re not in government or tech, these debates will affect you. AI is already changing how we search, work, learn, and interact online. As AI agents and assistants become more capable and autonomous, the question of who controls them—and under what rules—only becomes more important. (For example, Google’s recent shift toward AI agents is already reshaping how developers and users interact with the web, as explored in this piece on Google’s Antigravity 2.0 update.)

Whether AI ends up reinforcing existing power imbalances or helping to close gaps between the “haves” and “have-nots” will depend on the kinds of policies, safeguards, and public participation that emerge now. The clash between the Pope’s call for human-centered AI and the White House’s industry-influenced hesitation is just the beginning of that much larger conversation.