At a DC event on May 1, over 100 tech CEOs and investors plan to lobby against AI regulation, ask to relax immigration rules, and drum up hawkishness on China
Jacob Helberg, a senior adviser to Palantir, is organizing a conference for tech leaders and Washington lawmakers on May 1.Jason Andrew for The New York Times X: @ainowinstitute , @thekenyeung , and @jchengwsj X: @ainowinstitute : In @nytimes, @ambaonadventure emphasized to @ceciliakang that the U.S. / China AI race is consistently invoked by industry-aligned interests to give dominant American AI firms a pass on regulation. https://www.nytimes.com/... [image] Ken Yeung / @thekenyeung : The Hill & Valley Forum on May 1 will bring together lawmakers, tech leaders and investors to discuss how AI can help the U.S. remain competitive against China, an area in which all sides commonly agree. https://www.nytimes.com/... Jonathan Cheng / @jchengwsj : NYT: “On May 1, more than 100 tech chiefs and investors...will come to Washington for a daylong conference and private dinner focused on drumming up more hawkishness toward China's progress in A.I.” https://www.nytimes.com/...
Context & Ripple Effects
The Hill & Valley Forum formalizes a familiar Washington pattern: tech executives convene with policymakers around AI, following earlier White House AI meetings with major technology companies. Here, the agenda explicitly joins lighter AI rules, immigration policy and China competitiveness.
The China framing lands amid an active policy debate that already included possible export controls on general-purpose AI programs and industry arguments against moving too quickly on AI regulation. That combination matters because it recasts domestic AI policy as part of national competitive strategy.
First-order effects
- More than 100 CEOs and investors gain a coordinated venue to press lawmakers for less restrictive AI policy, looser immigration rules and a tougher China posture.
- Palantir adviser Jacob Helberg gains a convening role linking technology leaders, investors and Washington officials around a shared AI-competitiveness agenda.
Second-order effects
- AI companies and trade groups face stronger incentives to frame compliance costs and talent constraints as competitiveness risks, rather than debate safeguards on their own terms.
- Policymakers weighing AI rules may have to assess regulation, skilled-worker access and China policy as a connected package; that can elevate national-security arguments in what had been a primarily domestic governance debate.
Third-order effects
- If this coalition-building persists, AI governance could increasingly be shaped through state-aligned industrial-policy forums, where access to talent and strategic competition are negotiated alongside safety and accountability.
- The durable fault line is likely to be whether China competition justifies slower or narrower domestic constraints; the forum itself does not determine which side will prevail.
The trend: AI firms are increasingly treating national competitiveness as the umbrella argument for influencing regulation, talent policy and strategic technology policy together.