Tech Titans Are Dictating America’s Future Without Accountability
Americans are urged to place their trust in the judgments of their leading technology figures. These individuals position themselves as innovators, visionary thinkers, and impartial authorities—claiming they exist solely to enhance global safety and efficiency.
Yet an increasing number of Silicon Valley executives have taken a step with profound consequences: they are increasingly acting as unaccountable regulators of U.S. power. They speak in the language of responsibility, advocating for international cooperation and “guardrails” for technological development.
Dario Amodei, CEO of artificial intelligence company Anthropic, exemplifies this trend. Amodei presents himself as above politics, emphasizing safety and humanity’s protection from technological harm. However, his policy positions consistently advocate for slowing American technological deployment, restricting competition, and transferring greater authority to 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 deliberately limit U.S. technological leadership in the name of caution. These measures are framed as prudence but also align with a worldview that treats American power as inherently dangerous and requiring restraint.
This pattern is not unique to Amodei. It reflects a broader ideology within much of the tech industry: the belief that innovation should be governed by centralized authority, global frameworks, and elite consensus rather than national interests or democratic accountability.
Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, built one of history’s most influential technology companies before leveraging his 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 with limited democratic oversight.
Today’s AI leaders appear ready to follow a similar path—though their technologies are far more powerful and less understood than Gates’ era.
What is 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 align with their role as gatekeepers of emerging technologies.
This is not neutrality—it is 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 and securing government contracts.
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 gaining 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 have already shown the risks of unchecked moral certainty, as seen in high-profile scandals exposing the dangers of concentrating power in self-appointed visionaries.
The concern is not any single executive but a consistent 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 and 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 talent or drive. 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.
By Mitch Brown
Monday, February 23, 2026
Mitch Brown is an Army veteran with extensive experience as a linguist, intelligence and reconnaissance. In the U.S. House, he served in a legislative role before beginning work on policy for the chair of the Committee on Homeland Security. He was subsequently appointed as deputy White House Liaison for the Department of Labor during the Trump administration and tasked with lowering unemployment during the pandemic.
