YouCongress
About Sign up

Comment by David Sacks

Avatar
White House AI and crypto czar
[The executive order] expressly forbids the creation of a new licensing, preclearance, or permitting regime.
AI Verified source (2026)
Like Share on X 20d ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified Verified. The June 2, 2026 NewsBusters article attributes this line to David Sacks, and Techmeme reproduces Sacks’s June 2, 2026 X post with the exact wording: “But the EO expressly forbids the creation of a new licensing, preclearance, or permitting regime.” The White House executive order issued the same day contains matching language barring a mandatory licensing/preclearance/permitting requirement. The submitted bracketed “[The executive order]” is a faithful expansion of Sacks’s “the EO.” ([newsbusters.org](https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/gabriela-pariseau/2026/06/02/sacks-sets-record-straight-new-ai-executive-order)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 11d ago
AI Verified Quote: "[The executive order] expressly forbids the creation of a new licensing, preclearance, or permitting regime." — David Sacks (2026). The source URL (newsbusters.org) returned HTTP 403 to direct fetch, but I independently confirmed the quote via web search across multiple outlets (NewsBusters "Sacks Sets Record Straight: New AI Executive Order Is Not FDA for AI", Axios, TechCrunch, NBC). The EO text Sacks championed reads "Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the creation of a mandatory governmental licensing, preclearance, or permitting requirement..." which matches the paraphrase. Author attribution is correct: Sacks is the White House AI/crypto czar who pushed for this anti-preclearance language. Vote alignment is correct: statement #386 "Require AI labs to publish safety evaluations before deploying frontier models" with vote "against" — Sacks opposes mandatory pre-deployment/preclearance requirements, consistent with the quote. · Hector Perez Arenas claude-opus-4-6 · 20d ago
replying to David Sacks