TALLINN, Estonia (AP) — The U.S. special envoy for Belarus said Wednesday that the country’s authorities have agreed to release 25 prisoners as part of a deal that includes the lifting of U.S. sanctions against some Belarusian companies.

John Coale, President Donald Trump’s special envoy for Belarus, made the statement a day after meeting Belarus’ authoritarian President Alexander Lukashenko, who pushed for the remaining U.S. sanctions against his country to be lifted.

“25 prisoners are free today!” Coale said on X, adding that “President Trump’s commitment to direct diplomacy delivers results.” He also thanked Lukashenko and authorities in Lithuania, a European Union member that neighbors Belarus, for their support.

“We will continue to improve U.S.-Belarus relations and are working to secure the release of more people in the very near future,” Coale said. “We are not finished!”

Belarusian state news agency BELTA quoted Coale as saying Wednesday that the parties reached significant progress during Tuesday’s talks and that the U.S. will lift sanctions imposed on two Belarusian companies.

Belarusian authorities haven’t announced any details of the prisoners’ release yet.

Lukashenko has governed the nation of 9.5 million with an iron fist for more than three decades, and the country has been sanctioned repeatedly by Western countries — both for its crackdown on human rights and for allowing Moscow to use its territory in the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Since Trump returned to the White House for his second term, Lukashenko has released hundreds of political prisoners in a series of U.S.-mediated deals that also lifted some U.S. sanctions.

Speaking before the meeting with Coale, Lukashenko said that he’s open for discussing “a deal big or small.” Lukashenko also said that he would like to discuss the prospects for lifting more U.S. sanctions and exporting Belarusian fertilizers to the U.S.

As part of a deal in March that Washington helped broker, Lukashenko ordered the release of 250 political prisoners, while the U.S. agreed to lift sanctions on two Belarusian state banks and the country’s Finance Ministry, and to remove the top Belarusian potash producers from a sanctions list.

Another deal in April released prominent journalist Andrzej Poczobut in a swap with Poland that saw a total of 10 people freed.

Lukashenko’s rule was challenged after a 2020 presidential election, when hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets to protest a vote they viewed as rigged. In an ensuing crackdown, tens of thousands were detained, with many beaten by police. Prominent opposition figures fled the country or were imprisoned.

Five years after the mass demonstrations, Lukashenko won a seventh term last year in an election that the opposition called a farce.

The Belarusian opposition has welcomed Coale’s efforts as an important humanitarian mission, but emphasized that Lukashenko’s government has jailed more political prisoners.

Belarusian opposition leader-in-exile Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya said Tuesday she was deeply grateful to Trump, Coale and the U.S. administration for “making political prisoners a priority,” adding that “their engagement has already brought real results.”

But she emphasized that “repression continues” and Lukashenko “continues supporting Russia’s war.”

“The purpose should be to empty the prisons, not to rehabilitate the dictatorship,” Tsikhanouskaya said.

Belarus still has 887 political prisoners, according to the Viasna human rights center.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Dr. Nicole Saphier, President Donald Trump’s third nominee to serve as surgeon general, will face lawmakers at her confirmation hearing Wednesday in the latest attempt to fill the post known as the nation’s doctor.

Saphier, a radiologist and former Fox News Channel contributor, is Trump’s newest pick after entrepreneur and wellness influencer Dr. Casey Means saw her path forward stall in the Senate over her background and vaccine views. Trump withdrew his first nominee, Fox News medical contributor Janette Nesheiwat, after questions arose about her academic credentials.

Saphier will face questions from the Senate health committee for a position that carries limited policymaking power but a loud megaphone as the nation’s top communicator with Americans on public health issues.

While senators may scrutinize her credentials and background, Saphier will also be in the difficult position of navigating Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s more contentious policies, including his efforts to scale back vaccine guidance when measles outbreaks around the country are alarming the medical community. Lawmakers of both parties have criticized Kennedy’s stances and are likely to grill Saphier over whether she’ll more fiercely advocate vaccination if confirmed.

Saphier is director of breast imaging at Memorial Sloan Kettering Monmouth, according to her profile on the New York-based institution’s website. She has a doctor of medicine degree from Ross University School of Medicine in Barbados along with fellowships at the Mayo Clinic, the profile said.

Like Means, who is a close Kennedy ally, Saphier has questioned whether every child needs to get the hepatitis B vaccine at birth, a longtime recommendation that the Trump administration has been trying to weaken. Saphier has, however, disagreed with Trump and Kennedy on some issues, telling The Associated Press last fall that Trump’s cautions to pregnant women who take Tylenol were oversimplistic and “patronizing.”

Her latest ethics filing, dated Sept. 7, shows holdings with various healthcare and insurance firms, as well as processed food companies, like Coca-Cola, Yum Brands, the Hershey Co. and cigarette maker Philip Morris.

Before entering politics and throughout his tenure at the health department, Kennedy has criticized big pharmaceutical companies and insurance firms for alleged corruption and decried ultraprocessed foods as contributing to a nationwide chronic disease crisis.

Additionally, Saphier owns DropRx, a firm that produces controversial, unregulated tinctures — concentrated liquid extracts promoting focus and calm — that contain ingredients, including kava kava root, described by the FDA as potentially causing severe liver injury.

Her filing says she will resign from her position with DropRx and Empower MD LLC, which owns DropRx, if she is confirmed.

She states in the document that she would partially or fully divest from holdings that would present a conflict to serving as surgeon general.

Also facing lawmakers’ questions Wednesday is Chris Klomp, chief counselor of the Health and Human Services Department, who has been nominated to serve as Kennedy’s second-in-command. Also at the hearing will be Timothy Westlake, chief of staff at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, who is seeking confirmation to be assistant secretary for mental health and substance use.

The Trump administration has cut or frozen up to $177 billion in federal grants since the president took office for his second term, according to a tracking tool released Wednesday by a pro-democracy nonprofit and a group of researchers and scientists.

The cuts affected all 50 states and the District of Columbia, with health, nutrition, the environment and disaster relief making up the largest share of cuts, the States United Democracy Center and Grant Witness organization found.

Among the grants that were eliminated, frozen or delayed were ones related to maternal health in Michigan, education research in Mississippi and assistance to minority farmers in Iowa, the researchers found. California, Texas, New York, Illinois and North Carolina saw the highest amounts of interrupted grant money. The tracking tool is called Lost Funds.

“By bringing thousands of funding disruptions from the Trump administration together in a publicly accessible, verified database, Lost Funds puts the magnitude of their impact on full display,” Scott Delaney, co-founder of Grant Witness, said in a statement.

The $177 billion finding represents nearly 10% of federal discretionary spending, the groups said.

The tracker’s organizers said the disrupted grants were beyond the kind of cuts that typically happen when administrations change.

“Lost Funds shows the extraordinary scale and real human impact of these disruptions, and how states are once again on the front lines protecting their residents,” said Kelly Rader, States United Democracy Center’s research director.

In some cases, courts have ruled against the administration’s grant funding cuts.

The new tool, which is being made available for public use, relies on data from USASpending.gov, an open data source of federal spending information, according to the groups’ methodology. They said the tracker would be updated regularly as the administration takes new action and lawsuits move through the courts.

States United bills itself as a nonpartisan group dedicated to the rule of law and free, fair, secure elections. It was cofounded by Norm Eisen, an attorney who has been involved in prominent lawsuits against the Trump administration, including over the Kennedy Center.

Grant Witness is a group of scientists, researchers and attorneys who document how funding is changing under President Donald Trump’s administration.

A message seeking comment on the analysis was sent to the White House.

JOHANNESBURG, Sept 16 (Reuters) – South Africa’s foreign ministry said on Wednesday that it had noted with concern U.S. visa restrictions on some people from South Africa announced by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio a day earlier.

The foreign ministry added in a statement that the U.S. announcement aligned with “the mischaracterisation of South Africa’s domestic policies by fringe groups”.

“We maintain that challenges in our bilateral relations with the USA can only be resolved by constructive engagement through state actors on both sides of the diplomatic channel not unilateral acts,” the statement said.

Trump has repeatedly criticized South Africa since the start of his second term for what he falsely claims is the racial persecution of its white minority, citing affirmative action laws aimed at addressing the inequality that has persisted since apartheid.

It was not clear who would be impacted by the new visa restrictions. The U.S. Ambassador to South Africa said in a post on X earlier on Wednesday that they were “only the first step in a series of escalatory measures”.

(Reporting by Anathi Madubela and Sfundo Parakozov;Writing by Nellie Peyton;Editing by Alexander Winning)

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Charlie Kirk’s family blamed Utah officials for failing to prevent the conservative activist’s assassination at a state university, in a wrongful death notice announced Wednesday that presages a possible lawsuit.

Attorneys for the family said Kirk’s death resulted from a string of “reckless decisions” by officials at Utah Valley University that left him exposed to a rooftop sniper, who fired a fatal shot from more than 400 feet (122 meters) away on Sept. 10, 2025. The university has faced harsh criticism for a lack of key safety measures on the day of the shooting.

Kirk, 31, had been debating students in an outdoor courtyard surrounded by tall buildings and with several thousand people in attendance. An Associated Press review following the shooting showed the campus in Orem did not use several public safety practices that have become standard safeguards at events around the country.

Campus police staffing was far below recommended levels for a school of that size. They also did not fly a drone to monitor rooftops or coordinate with local law enforcement to secure the event attended by about 3,000 people. There were no bag checks or metal detectors.

“The risk of a rooftop shooter should have been especially top-of-mind given the attempted assassination of President Trump, Charlie Kirk’s close friend and political ally, by a rooftop shooter the previous year,” Kirk family attorney D. Loren Washburn wrote in the notice to state and university officials.

The document, dated Sept. 9, a day before the one-year anniversary of Kirk’s death, is a required step under state law before his family can file a formal claim or lawsuit. It names the university and its then-president, Astrid Tuminez; the campus police department and its chief, Jeffrey Long; and the state of Utah.

A spokesperson for Utah Valley University said the school was aware of the notice and would address it “consistent with our established processes.”

“Our focus remains on supporting our campus community,” spokesperson Sharon Turner said in a statement.

The Utah Attorney General’s Office said it does not comment on potential litigation.

Attorneys for Kirk’s family alleged additional lapses by officials, including not conducting an adequate risk assessment before approving the event, failing to establish a secure perimeter and having no first responders immediately available, resulting in Kirk being taken to a nearby hospital in a private vehicle rather than an ambulance after he was shot.

“Tragically, the UVU Parties took none of these safety measures — steps only they had the authority to take — resulting in a situation that rendered Mr. Kirk helpless before his assassin,” Washburn wrote.

Long said after the shooting that six of his officers staffed the event and coordinated with Kirk’s eight-person private security team. The school said it was expanding its police force following the shooting.

Utah resident Tyler Robinson turned himself in a day after Kirk’s killing. Prosecutors say he told his romantic partner that he “had enough of his (Kirk’s) hatred.”

Robinson is charged with aggravated murder, making him eligible for the death penalty if convicted. A judge on Sept. 1 ordered the case to proceed toward trial. A date has not yet been set.

Prosecutors during a preliminary hearing in July presented what they characterized as overwhelming evidence against Robinson. That includes surveillance video of Robinson on the campus, DNA tests linking him to a rifle found near the assassination site and a handwritten note he allegedly left for his romantic partner that read, “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I took it.”

Kirk’s parents, Robert and Kathryn Kirk, and widow, Erika Kirk, attended the hearings.

State law allows heirs or personal representatives of people who die to file lawsuits seeking damages if the death was caused by a wrongful act or negligence. The notice from Kirk’s family did not specify what damages they may seek.

___

Brown reported from Billings, Montana.

CAPE TOWN, South Africa (AP) — The Trump administration has announced that it will impose travel bans on officials it claims are responsible for discrimination against whites and other minority groups in South Africa.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Tuesday he would revoke U.S. visas or reject visa applications from foreign nationals found to be responsible for, or complicit in, enacting or enforcing laws and policies that allow for uncompensated land seizures, race-based discrimination and the incitement of violence against minority ethnic and racial groups in South Africa.

“The United States will not allow such behavior to go unchecked,” Rubio said in a statement. “These actions directly undermine peace, economic stability, and the rule of law, and they are incompatible with the pillars of America’s foreign policy.”

The South African government has strongly rejected U.S. allegations of discrimination against whites, calling the claims made by the administration since U.S. President Donald Trump returned to office last year baseless and a result of misinformation.

Rubio did not identify any officials who would be targeted with the travel restrictions, though a lobby group for minority whites in South Africa has previously called for the U.S. to sanction officials of the African National Congress party, the party of South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and the largest in South Africa’s Parliament.

It’s the latest move by the Trump administration to sanction South Africa over its claims that whites, and especially the Afrikaner group, are being discriminated against by their Black-led government. Afrikaners are descended from mainly Dutch and French colonial settlers who first came to South Africa in the 17th century. They were at the heart of South Africa’s previous apartheid system of racial segregation.

There are approximately 4.5 million white people in South Africa’s population of 62 million, which also includes whites with British or other heritage.

The U.S. has cited a contentious South African law that allows for the expropriation of unused private land without compensation in some circumstances, affirmative action policies that advance opportunities for Blacks and others, and a small number of violent crimes against white farmers as evidence of a larger anti-white stance in South Africa.

The Trump administration has also strongly criticized South Africa’s move to accuse U.S. ally Israel of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza in a highly emotive case in the United Nations’ top court. Israel vehemently denies that allegation.

The U.S. has enforced a series of other sanctions against South Africa during Trump’s second term for purported anti-white and anti-American policies. They include barring South African officials from meetings of the Group of 20 economic bloc this year in the U.S., and phasing out aid for South Africa’s HIV treatment program.

The U.S. has also launched a refugee program for Afrikaners and other whites, claiming baselessly that they are victims of a humanitarian emergency in South Africa.

The U.S. says the sanctions are because South Africa has not changed its policies.

“This visa restriction policy is only the first step in a series of escalatory measures that will show America’s firm resolve in this matter,” the official U.S. Ambassador to South Africa account posted on X on Wednesday, referring to Rubio’s visa announcement.

___

AP writer Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report.

___

More AP news on the Trump administration: https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump

Sept 16 (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote as soon as Wednesday on bipartisan legislation that seeks to rein in electricity bill increases tied to the expansion of data centers that support artificial intelligence.

The vote comes as government officials nationwide are under pressure to take steps to prevent the soaring cost of data center power needs from being passed on to average households.

The Ratepayer Protection Act would require state utility regulators to consider whether large electricity users, including data centers, should bear the incremental costs of the power infrastructure needed to serve them. It was introduced by Representative Kathy Castor, a Democrat from Florida, and Gabe Evans, a Colorado Republican.

The bill has bipartisan backing and is expected to pass the House, an uncommon point of agreement in Congress as policymakers seek ways to balance economic growth, grid reliability and consumer affordability ahead of the midterm elections in November.

U.S. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, at a press conference this week, gave his blessing to the bill. He called it an “appropriate step forward” but added that “more clearly needs to be done.”

Former Federal Energy Regulatory Commission member Allison Clements said the measure was not transformative, but sent an important message.

“This particular ratepayer bill is really one relatively modest step in the right direction,” Clements said. “It holds value in that it’s signaling, should it pass on a bipartisan basis, that Congress continues to be aligned with the priorities of protecting customers in the face of all of this new needed investment and demand growth.”

Environmental group Food & Water Watch, which favors a nationwide pause on new data center development, said the legislation focuses narrowly on electricity costs while failing to address broader concerns about data centers’ impacts on water resources, pollution and communities.

(Reporting by Nichola Groom in Los Angeles and Richard Cowan in Washington; Editing by Stephen Coates)

By Andrew Hay

Sept 16 (Reuters) – The family of conservative U.S. political activist Charlie Kirk plans to sue a Utah university over his fatal shooting there, alleging inadequate security contributed to his death, according to a notice of claim sent by the family’s lawyers.

A September 9 letter from the family’s law firm notified Utah Valley University and the State of Utah of its intent to seek damages over Kirk’s September 10, 2025, killing, according to a copy of the document sent to media.

The notice alleges that Kirk’s organization, Turning Point USA, warned university police about security risks posed by rooftops overlooking the university’s amphitheater where he was due to speak.  According to the notice, the university police chief responded in a text message to a Turning Point USA staff member: “I got you covered.” 

The notice says that university police failed to control access to the rooftop from which Kirk was shot.

The Utah attorney general’s office and Utah Valley University did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Tyler Robinson, 23, a  former electrical apprentice, is accused of shooting Kirk from the roof of the university’s student resource center. Utah prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. 

Robinson had a boyfriend who was considering gender transition and targeted Kirk for his views against gay marriage and transgender rights, prosecutors allege. Though Kirk spoke “hatefully” about people who were not heterosexual, or gender norm conforming, that does not rise to evidence of motive, defense attorney Richard Novak has said in court.

Robinson has pleaded not guilty . A trial date is expected to be set at an October 23 hearing. 

(Reporting by Andrew Hay in New Mexico; editing by Donna Bryson and Sanjeev Miglani)

On the way home from a recent trip, Eriech Tapia drove past a sea of dark industrial buildings lining an already jam-packed northern Virginia road: data centers.

“It was interesting to see how many were going up,” said Tapia, a 30-year-old Republican from Arlington, Virginia, who works in higher education advocacy and policy. He said the data centers lend valuable computing power that can help keep the U.S. competitive with other nations, but he also worries about how much electricity they use.

Like Tapia, Americans have grown more concerned about the environmental impacts of artificial intelligence over the last year, according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago.

The survey data say about half, 53%, of Americans are “extremely” or “very” concerned about artificial intelligence’s environmental impacts. That is up from 41% last year. Democrats are driving much of the increase in environmental concern, but the poll also reveals broader worries about the local impact of data centers, which power AI and cloud computing.

“We’re undertaking a massive experiment in real time, and I don’t think there’ll be any putting the milk back in the bottle. Change is scary, and I think some of that is being reflected here,” said Michael Greenstone, who directs the University of Chicago institute that collaborated on the survey.

There are thousands of data centers in the U.S. with construction planned for more. Those include smaller, conventional centers that have been around for decades, as well as larger hyperscale ones that are being built to serve artificial intelligence’s added processing needs. Virginia and Texas have the most facilities currently in operation, and other top contenders include California, Ohio and New York.

While 87% of existing data centers are in urban areas, most new data centers are planned for rural areas, according to a Pew Research Center analysis from earlier this year.

“I think that decisions are being made for the company, not for the community that they’re being built in,” said Nancy Antunes, a 60-year-old retired Democrat from Waltham, Massachusetts.

A recent United Nations University report predicted that data centers’ environmental footprint, which already rivals some of the world’s largest countries, will grow rapidly as AI is more widely adopted.

Democrats are increasingly worried about AI’s environmental consequences. About two-thirds of Democrats say they are “extremely” or “very” concerned about how AI will affect the environment, the poll found, up from about half in 2025. By contrast, about half of independents and about 4 in 10 Republicans are highly concerned about the environmental impact of AI.

Overall, Americans are more worried about the environmental impact of AI than other industries with a substantial environmental footprint. Only about 3 in 10 U.S. adults are highly concerned about the impact of meat production or air travel.

While concerns about environmental impacts are higher among Democrats, there is a broad sense of wariness about a rapid data center boom.

About 6 in 10 Americans support limiting the number of new data centers that can be built, including most Democrats and Republicans.

“There’s a lot of water usage by AI data centers that’s taking away from other things like agriculture and farmers and places that really need it, and people who really need it,” said 21-year-old computer science student Gedeon Kebede, a Democrat from Cincinnati, Ohio.

A majority of Americans are “extremely” or “very” concerned about the impact of data centers on electricity prices or the water supply in the communities where they are built.

Data centers’ use of water to cool AI chips and computers is “nationally modest but potentially locally decisive,” energy systems engineer Fengqi You with Cornell University said in an email. While data centers aren’t the U.S.’ largest water gobblers, a single large campus can still place stress on a smaller municipal area.

The centers are also powered by tremendous amounts of electricity, particularly larger ones, raising concerns about where that energy will come from. Data centers could account for 11.8% of the U.S.’ electricity consumption by 2030, according to a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report.

“We’re talking about building electric infrastructure on a scale of entire cities, or in some cases, entire states just to serve one data center,” said Erik Nordman, director of Michigan State University’s Institute of Public Utilities.

About two-thirds of U.S. adults support requiring data centers to use clean energy sources, such as wind or solar, to supply their electricity needs. About 8 in 10 Democrats support this, along with 56% of Republicans.

Still, some Americans say data center worries feel distant. Mary Fisher, 68, hasn’t seen any come up in her Jacksonville, Florida, neighborhood.

“You know, it hasn’t come across my desk as something I should be concerned about,” said Fisher, who is retired and identifies as a Republican.

About a quarter of U.S. adults say data centers are “extremely” or “very” beneficial when it comes to technological advancement, and about 2 in 10 say the same about job creation. Many U.S. adults say data centers are “somewhat” beneficial or aren’t sure, while about one-quarter say they’re “not very” or “not at all” beneficial for technological advancement, and about a third don’t see a benefit for job creation.

“I see a huge increase in the number of temporary construction workers that are coming to areas, which is vitally important to the U.S. economy,” Tapia from Virginia said.

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to see data centers’ benefits. But about 3 in 10 Republicans still think the centers are “not very” or “not at all” beneficial for improved infrastructure and job creation.

Kebede, the computer science student, said he feels pressured to use artificial intelligence. Despite his concerns surrounding the technology, he still wants to be a competitive applicant for the jobs of the future.

“I think a lot of people just feel that it’s very much a bubble,” he said. “Ultimately, when it pops, it’s going to be very detrimental to everyone, whether you bought into the AI hype or not.”

___

The AP-NORC poll of 3,424 adults was conducted July 6-24, 2026, using a combined sample of interviews from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population, and interviews from opt-in online panels. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 2.2 percentage points. The AmeriSpeak panel is recruited randomly using address-based sampling methods, and respondents later were interviewed online or by phone. To incorporate the nonprobability sample, NORC used TrueNorth calibration, an innovative hybrid calibration approach developed at NORC to explicitly account for potential bias associated with the nonprobability sample.

___

The Associated Press’ health and science coverage receives financial support from the AP Fund for Journalism and private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

The leading AI industry voices rarely agree — so when they do, it’s no wonder it captures attention.

Anthropic’s Dario Amodei, OpenAI’s Sam Altman, SpaceXAI’s Elon Musk and other prominent industry leaders have said in recent days that AI’s development needs to slow down. The consensus came after an Anthropic researcher resigned with a dire warning about the threats the technology poses to humanity.

But obstacles including domestic and global competition, profit motivations and pushback from President Donald Trump all stand in the way of a coordinated effort to pace AI’s development.

Still, this moment could force the industry to wrestle with a “reframing of what we consider successful,” said Nick Reese, former director of emerging technology policy at the Department of Homeland Security and an adjunct professor at New York University.

“What if we considered success in AI the same way that we consider success for airlines? On time and haven’t had a crash in who knows how long,” Reese said. “We don’t tolerate commercial airline crashes, but we do tolerate significant AI failures.”

In theory, the leading AI startups could slow the progress of their models at any time. But leaps in the technology have partly sprung from competition to build even more powerful models, all with the blessing of a White House that doesn’t want the U.S. to lose its edge over China. Anthropic and OpenAI also are racing toward potentially record-breaking public offerings on Wall Street, although the latter said it’s holding off on going public this year while it continues its safety efforts.

That’s why the proposals floated by industry depend upon mutual collaboration and, to an extent, government regulation.

Amodei recently published a lengthy essay in which he outlined a plan for slowing advanced AI development.

One proposal calls for companies at the forefront of AI, often called frontier labs, to commit to giving “ongoing, employee-like access” to independent outside evaluators. Evaluator teams would have offices, access badges and company laptops so they can monitor safety practices.

Anthropic is “unilaterally committing” to this step now, Amodei wrote. Altman called it a “great idea” on social media and said OpenAI will follow suit.

Altman said he welcomed a “federal framework” setting out safety standards for advanced AI, but said the company didn’t need to wait for legislation or an antitrust exemption before addressing AI safety.

Amodei’s essay also called for government regulation and intervention, including coordination between frontier AI companies with the help of the U.S. government and the governments of other democratic countries. He said he hopes the leading labs could establish “common safety standards as well as limits on the rate of unchecked AI progress.”

Amodei’s plan also includes the U.S. and other countries working to coordinate with “authoritarian governments.” He acknowledged the difficulty, specifically citing challenges in getting cooperation from China.

The Anthropic head outlined several levels of agreement that global leaders could sign off on. The most feasible, he said, would be an agreement banning “certain narrow and obviously dangerous uses of AI” like producing biological weapons or allowing users to do so. More difficult would be getting the U.S. and its adversaries to agree to test models before release, possibly through a global standards body, for risks in areas like cybersecurity or biological threats.

Still harder would be to set a “speed limit” on AI models that can develop improved versions of themselves on their own, known as recursive self-improvement.

“Slowing the rate from ‘extremely fast’ to ‘only somewhat fast’ gives up relatively little strategic advantage, while potentially greatly improving safety,” Amodei wrote.

He drew an analogy to Cold War-era treaties in which “capping the number of missiles limited the potential for destruction while preserving each country’s deterrent.”

Amodei said the most difficult proposal to implement would be a “full pacing, or even ‘pause,’” whereby participating governments agree to substantially limit the overall rate of AI development.

Writing on social media, Altman said the “pacing” of AI development does not mean stopping. AI progress will continue to be rapid, Altman said on X. “But it should be slower than it otherwise could be; interventions like safety cases and monitoring have significant costs.”

“Pacing will be well worth this cost,” he said, adding that “no amount of American competitive pressure should justify recklessness.”

While experts said the sense of agreement across the industry is promising, there are many unanswered questions.

A slowdown is possible “in theory,” said Sandra Wachter, professor of technology and regulation at the Oxford Internet Institute.

But in practice, “it would require substantial coordination and cooperation between companies and governments across countries,” something she deems “highly unrealistic” due to “the current state of the world.”

Options for promoting a slowdown, she said, include governments doing more to hold AI companies responsible for the risks posed by their technology and pursuing regulation that limits their access to electricity, water and other resources that power data centers.

The idea of embedding external evaluators inside companies has been mostly well-received by the industry, but some critics questioned how independent the assessors could be and how the evaluation standards would be drawn up. The result could be even more concentration of power, Aidan Gomez, co-founder and CEO of the Canadian AI lab Cohere, wrote in response to Amodei’s essay.

“A handful of the most powerful labs based in one country would agree on shared standards and the limits to how fast the technology should advance,” Gomez said.

He also pushed back against Amodei’s idea to have the U.S. government give frontier labs waivers to bypass antitrust restrictions.

“If this is the most consequential technology in human history, then the rules for it cannot be written by a small group of commercially aligned companies behind an antitrust waiver,” Gomez said.

Elham Tabassi, the director of the AI and Emerging Technology Initiative and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said until the measures companies are committing to are solidified and made public, having independent auditors would be a “voluntarily-provided, company-controlled” move.

Tabassi said it’s crucial AI companies continue to invest in developing “scientifically valid” ways of testing and measuring their models as they aim for increased safety. Without this, regulation won’t hold as much power, she said.

The Trump administration has long favored a light-touch approach to the AI industry in hopes that innovation would flourish and that AI development in the U.S. would surpass China.

The competition between American and Chinese AI companies has been likened to an arms race, which experts said is not conducive to collaboration. That creates “conditions where now we have this existential adversary,” Reese said.

Still, some industry leaders remain “cautiously hopeful” about AI development moving in a more safety-minded direction, said Zahra Timsah, the co-founder and CEO of governance platform i-GENTIC AI.

“Within days, you have CEOs that are competing — all of them, all of a sudden, found common ground. You have senators from both parties that started to advance different forms of oversight,” Timsah said.

“It’s receiving attention, but attention is not the same as implementation. Will it really work? I don’t know.”