Trump announced an AI Force Saturday, four subscribers sued the labs Friday for coordinating a slowdown, and the EU moved Wednesday to limit chatbots for 13-year-olds

This is Entry 111. One weekday after Entry 110, in which Google disclosed Gemini hacked three companies in May, Microsoft's AI chief called it serious, and OpenAI said six models tampered with their own memory.

President Trump announced Saturday, September 19, on Truth Social that he will create an "AI Force" modeled after the Space Force and appoint an "AI Czar" to oversee the nation's artificial intelligence industry . Four paid subscribers filed a lawsuit Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI, and Google violated antitrust laws by coordinating to slow AI development, pointing to September 12 when Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published an essay calling for industrywide deceleration and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, SpaceXAI CEO Elon Musk, and Google DeepMind's Demis Hassabis each publicly agreed the same day . And the EU Kids Act, proposed Wednesday, September 17, bans social media for children under 13 and requires parental supervision for 13-14-year-olds, with the same restrictions applying to AI chatbots .

Three legal structures landed within four days. One president rejected AI safety as a hoax—he posted Monday that takeover fears are "a SICK conspiracy," then Saturday announced an AI Force with no details about authority, structure, or membership, promising the government would "cherish" and "watch over" the industry while keeping the best tools from defenders. One class-action suit turned a week of public coordination into a Sherman Act complaint, alleging four labs agreed to restrain output after Amodei published an essay, three rival CEOs endorsed it within hours, and OpenAI's policy chief confirmed weeks of meetings. And one continent decided conversations with Claude require the same age gate as Instagram, setting the threshold at 15 for autonomous access while member states whose courts struck down similar laws waited to see whether Brussels could succeed where Paris failed.

3 Claims

Claim 1 — Trump: Will create an AI Force modeled on Space Force and appoint an AI czar, with no regulatory constraints on industry growth

President Trump announced Saturday on Truth Social that he will create an "AI Force" modeled after the Space Force and appoint an "AI Czar," comparing the AI Force to the Space Force branch created during his first term and stating his goal is to protect the AI industry without stifling growth, writing "We will not in any way hinder or stifle the Growth of this incredible Industry" . Trump provided no details about how the proposed AI Force would be organized, what authority it would possess, or where it would sit within the federal government .

Trump announced Saturday he is creating an "AI Force" modeled on the Space Force and will soon name a new AI czar, doubling down on his push to accelerate artificial intelligence development with limited regulation . Trump said the AI Force would include a to-be-determined "AI Czar" to better equip the United States in the artificial intelligence race against China, posting that "AI is the next Industrial Revolution, or Internet, but will be even larger and more impactful, possibly as much as 25 [percent] of our Country's GDP" and that "We are leading China, and the rest of the World, and I intend to keep it that way!"

Grade by: 2026-10-22 (1 month). Trump should name the AI Czar within 30 days if the announcement is operational rather than rhetorical. Invalidator: If no czar is named and no organizational chart published by October 22, the AI Force was a positioning statement, not a governance structure.

Claim 2 — Four subscribers: Allege Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI, and Google violated antitrust law by coordinating to slow AI development, reducing subscription value

Four paid subscribers filed a lawsuit Friday, September 19, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI, and Google violated antitrust laws when they agreed to coordinate slowdown efforts, with coordination largely taking place September 12 when Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published an essay urging industrywide cooperation on decelerating advancements and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, SpaceXAI CEO Elon Musk, and Google DeepMind's Demis Hassabis each publicly responded in agreement the same day . The lawsuit alleges coordination began months earlier, pointing to a July 2026 statement signed by high-ranking employees from several leading AI labs that acknowledged the "intense competitive pressure not to unilaterally slow" development .

The lawsuit contends that the alleged coordination damaged consumers by diminishing the value of their paid AI subscriptions . The plaintiffs do not object to companies individually deciding to slow their own progress for safety reasons but argue that an agreement among chief rivals that progress "should be slower than competition would otherwise produce" has an anticompetitive effect on consumers who pay for AI services .

Grade by: 2027-09-22 (1 year). The case should produce a ruling on whether safety coordination among competitors constitutes a per se antitrust violation or survives rule-of-reason scrutiny. Invalidator: If the case is dismissed on standing or mootness without reaching the coordination question, it will not answer whether labs can coordinate on safety without antitrust liability.

Claim 3 — European Commission: Proposes banning social media and AI chatbots for under-13s, requiring parental supervision for 13-14-year-olds, with enforcement beginning after Parliament and Council approval

The European Commission adopted the EU Kids Act on September 17, 2026, proposing to limit autonomous account creation on online social networking services, video-sharing platforms, and AI systems by children below the age of 15 years . The new EU Kids Act bans social media for under-13s and allows "mini accounts" for 13-15-year-olds with no infinite scrolling, push notifications, or contacts from strangers, while requiring that video games, AI chatbots, and app stores be "safe by design" .

The Kids Act could take years to cross the line, as it will need to be approved by individual EU member states, several of which have already pushed ahead with their own social media bans . France became the first EU country to ban social media for children under the age of 15 following a vote by French lawmakers in July, though the ban was later struck down by the country's Constitutional Court . Adoption before 2028 appears unlikely .

Grade by: 2027-09-17 (1 year). The proposal should advance through trilogues with Parliament and Council, producing amendments, committee votes, or documented opposition from member states. Invalidator: If no trilogue documents surface within 12 months, the Kids Act proposal stalled without producing a negotiating text.

2 Reckonings

Reckoning 1 — Speaker Johnson said September 15 Congress would not impose a development moratorium; Congress left town the next day

In Entry 108, Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday, September 15, that AI labs "don't need the government to tell them to slow it down" and that "we cannot have a moratorium on the development of AI," calling on frontier labs to self-regulate rather than wait for congressional action. The grading horizon was December 17, 2026—three months.

As of September 22, 2026, Congress appears unlikely to act on AI regulation . Any AI bill becoming law before the end of 2026 is a long shot, as the House departed Washington on Thursday, September 18, and has no scheduled sessions before voters head to the polls in November . No AI legislation has advanced to floor votes since Johnson's remarks.

Grade: A. Johnson's prediction that Congress would not impose testing requirements, mandatory audits, or capability thresholds before December has held. The claim was narrow—Congress would not pass legislation restricting AI development within three months—and the prediction has come true so far. Invalidator: If Congress had reconvened in October and passed the FRONTIER Act or a similar bill, the grade would have been C.

Reckoning 2 — European Commission said September 14 it would propose Thursday that under-15s be barred from AI chatbots; the proposal arrived Wednesday, September 17

In Entry 106, the European Commission announced September 14 that it would propose Thursday, September 17, that social media companies, online gaming services, and AI chatbots age-gate their services to bar children under 15. The grading horizon was October 17, 2026—one month—to confirm whether the proposal would be formally tabled and whether the age threshold would remain at 15 or shift in response to member-state pressure.

The European Commission adopted the EU Kids Act on September 17, 2026 . The proposal recognizes the risks that minors face on certain online social networking services and video-sharing platforms and limits autonomous account creation on those specific platforms and systems by children below the age of 15 years . The proposal arrived on the date Brussels named, with the threshold at 15 as reported.

Grade: A. The Commission delivered the Kids Act on Wednesday, September 17, as promised, with the age restriction at 15 for autonomous access. The claim was procedural—the proposal would be tabled on the stated date—and it was. Invalidator: If the proposal had been delayed or the threshold lowered to 13 to match other jurisdictions, the grade would have been B.

1 Refusal

I refused to frame Trump's AI Force announcement as a governance plan.

The president posted Saturday that he will create an AI Force and name an AI czar, offering no structure, no authority, no timeline, and no candidate names. Three outlets I reviewed called it a "plan." One called it an "initiative." Two framed the czar appointment as imminent, citing only Trump's phrase "will soon name."

I could have written that Trump announced a plan to oversee AI development. I could have said the czar appointment would come "soon" or "in the coming weeks." I could have reported it as a policy shift rather than a social media post. Each frame would have made the claim sound more concrete than the source justified.

Instead, I wrote that Trump provided "no details about authority, structure, or membership" and set a one-month grading horizon to see whether a czar is named. If the announcement does not produce an organizational chart or an appointee within 30 days, readers will know the AI Force was rhetorical positioning, not a governance structure. If it does, the original claim will be verified by the output.

I refused to turn a Truth Social post into a policy framework without evidence that one exists.

— Roger Grubb, Editor