A new federal AI force is tasked with balancing national-security concerns against overregulation, while a cloud-cost case study shows how infrastructure choices can affect smaller operators.
President Donald Trump’s new Super Intelligence Force is being asked to address a difficult policy balance: responding to AI risks without rules that entrench the companies best positioned to comply with them.
Trump said Oct. 4 that Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton will lead the force while remaining intelligence director. FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, Defense Department official Emil Michael and Office of Personnel Management Director Scott Kupor will also lead it. The group will report directly to Trump and Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Politico reported.
The assignment extends beyond military applications. The force is intended to coordinate federal engagement with consumers, public-interest and religious groups, critical-infrastructure providers and AI companies, according to Politico and TechCrunch. TechCrunch reports it has 120 days to produce a report on AI risks and opportunities.
Its reported charter calls for addressing “SI-enabled threats” while avoiding overregulation and regulatory capture that could restrict innovation and competition. That puts market structure in the discussion, but it does not amount to a merger review, antitrust case or new enforcement policy. The available reports identify no new Federal Trade Commission or Justice Department action against an AI company.
Politico characterizes Clayton’s appointment as an attempt at a middle path: retaining Trump’s anti-regulation posture while acknowledging AI’s potential to destabilize society. Clayton has opposed an industry-wide pause on AI development and said existing product-liability law is currently sufficient, Politico reported.
The choice of leader also elevates national security in civilian AI policy. Clayton oversees an intelligence apparatus with a budget exceeding $80 billion and 17 agencies, according to the source material. His role brings a national-security perspective to the group while raising questions about privacy and federal involvement in civilian technology. Ferguson’s participation brings the FTC chair into the process, but reports do not specify whether the force will have authority over enforcement decisions.
Competition policy will depend in part on whether the group recognizes that compliance costs can weigh more heavily on smaller firms than on dominant platforms. Access to computing capacity and control over essential infrastructure can also shape who gets to compete. The charter’s warning about regulatory capture acknowledges that rules can protect incumbents, though no specific safeguards or process for identifying capture have been reported.
A separate Dev.to case study illustrates how infrastructure costs affect one technology operator. The account says that after adopting Karpenter, a tool for managing computing capacity on Amazon Web Services, the operator reduced its cluster from 47 nodes to 19. Average CPU utilization rose from 18% to 28%, while monthly AWS costs fell from $12,400 to $7,100—a claimed saving of $5,300 a month.
Those figures are one operator’s account, not an independently verified industry-wide result or evidence of anticompetitive conduct by a cloud provider. The case study attributes the savings to choices including Spot-first scheduling, workload consolidation and 30-day node expiration. It also describes risks: stateful workloads could face a 90-second delay during storage detachment and reattachment; Spot instances provide two minutes’ termination notice; and consolidation may concentrate workloads in one availability zone.
The account does not establish whether Karpenter reduces dependence on AWS or changes competition in cloud markets. It does show how technical tools and operating costs can affect a company’s options. For smaller businesses, lower infrastructure costs could free resources for hiring or product development, but the source offers no evidence on how widely such savings can be achieved.
The task force’s 120-day report may clarify whether competition is more than a stated principle in AI policy. For now, reporting describes its mandate and leadership, not a concrete remedy for concentrated market power.
Greg Sanders serves as the Senior Correspondent for Corporate Power and Antitrust at Just Right News, where he brings a principled, conservative perspective to the complex intersection of big business, government regulation, and the American consumer. With a career dedicated to investigative depth and economic clarity, Greg has become a leading voice in examining how the consolidation of industry power impacts the foundational values of the free market and individual liberty.
Raised in Denver, Colorado, Greg’s reporting is deeply informed by the Western spirit of independence and a healthy skepticism of centralized authority. Growing up in the shadows of the Rockies, he witnessed firsthand the importance of local entrepreneurship and the vital role that small-medium enterprises play in sustaining vibrant communities. This upbringing instilled in him a belief that the American Dream is best preserved when the playing field remains level and when competition—rather than backroom deals between corporate lobbyists and federal regulators—dictates success. For Greg, the rugged individualism of his home state serves as a constant reminder that the economy should serve the people, not the other way around.
Now based in Chicago, Illinois, Greg operates from the heart of the nation’s industrial and financial crossroads. His location in the Midwest provides him with a unique vantage point to observe the real-world consequences of corporate overreach. From the boardrooms of the Loop to the manufacturing hubs that define the region, he tracks the movement of capital and the shifting tides of market influence. Chicago’s history as a center of trade and labor offers a rich backdrop for his work, allowing him to bridge the gap between high-level economic theory and the lived experiences of hardworking Americans who feel the squeeze of monopolistic practices.
At Just Right News, Greg’s beat focuses on the “new monopolies” and the rise of “woke” corporate culture. He argues that when corporations become too large, they often abandon their fiduciary duties to shareholders in favor of social engineering and political posturing. His reporting seeks to hold these “Titans” accountable, ensuring that the power of the purse is not used to silence dissent or bypass the democratic process. He is a firm advocate for the idea that true conservatism requires a vigilant defense of competition, preventing any single entity—public or private—from exerting undue control over the lives of citizens.
This mission is most clearly seen in his acclaimed feature series, “The Titans and the Toll.” In this ongoing project, Greg explores the human cost of market consolidation, from the erosion of consumer choice to the decline of local economies. Through rigorous analysis and boots-on-the-ground reporting, he documents how the concentration of power in sectors like tech, agriculture, and finance creates a “toll” paid by the average family.
Greg Sanders remains committed to the idea that a transparent, competitive market is the greatest engine for prosperity ever devised. Through his work at Just Right News, he continues to provide the essential oversight necessary to protect that engine from the encroaching influence of corporate giants and the bureaucratic structures that enable them.