Tag: artificial intelligence
Amy Gleason

Tech Elites Lobby Top Trump Health Officials In Government-Run Chat Room

A cadre of elite techies, financiers, and high-level Trump administration officials have spent a year quietly charting an extraordinary and rapid campaign to persuade Americans to use apps and other artificial intelligence-powered tools to manage their healthcare and medical records.

As that campaign has unfolded, administration officials have granted tech companies an unusual opportunity to nudge the nation’s health department toward a loosely regulated future for AI health apps in which the government reimburses them for services as it does medical professionals.

In February, federal health officials invited those businesses — including tech giants Microsoft, Anthropic, OpenAI, Apple, and Google — to a listening session on conversational AI products for patients, such as chatbots. Representatives from at least 35 industry organizations attended the meeting held by the Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for regulating health apps as medical devices. Companies were prompted in advance to explain their AI products and how they access patients’ sensitive medical information.

But the meeting did not appear on the FDA’s public calendar or regulatory notices, nor was the public invited. Rather, the invitation for a select group to help shape federal policy governing AI in healthcare was extended in a chat room on the messaging service Slack.

“This is a great opportunity to support HHS’ goals and share your state-of-the-art understanding of safe Conversational AI development and monitoring to help FDA shape future guidance,” CMS senior policy adviser Morgan Taylor wrote in the Slack workspace.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has not formally announced the chat room through federal regulatory channels, though CMS officials have talked about it at industry conferences. Legal experts said the chat room resembles a federal advisory panel, which would be required to operate in public view.

KFF Health News reviewed thousands of Slack messages, meeting transcripts, and video recordings that reveal how the Trump administration has granted the industry a direct line to top government officials — including former head of the Department of Government Efficiency Amy Gleason.

The conversation took place behind the scenes as federal health officials publicly worked to integrate AI and other technology into nearly every aspect of healthcare, a plan they’ve branded the “Health Technology Ecosystem.”

“We wanted to give industry a chance to play in the sandbox of government-supported healthcare,” CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz said in September at the public launch of an initiative that allows health apps to bill Medicare for AI services such as wearable device tracking. Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. delivered an enthusiastic endorsement of AI in healthcare, claiming it is “much better informed than any doctor in the country.”

Meanwhile, HHS staff even promised that a recently launched Medicare App Library would serve as a lucrative pipeline for those businesses to get new users. The library's webpage currently promotes only two dozen commercial apps to millions of American seniors and those with disabilities.

As Trump officials sell it, Americans will get easier access to their medical records so apps can swiftly provide health or wellness advice. In practice, however, so will the tech companies.

Doctors, meanwhile, are increasingly worried about how patients use and share their medical records with the nascent technology.

“Some of these tools just aren’t ready for primetime,” said John Whyte, CEO of the American Medical Association. “We don’t have enough data about them. We don’t understand how they work, how they’re using the information. There’s no liability if these tools get things wrong.”

CMS officials declined to answer several questions about the Slack workspace, including about its legality.

“CMS is focused on giving Medicare beneficiaries greater access to their health information and useful digital tools while promoting an open, interoperable healthcare system,” Gleason, now chief product officer for the newly created Office of Health Technology and Products at CMS, wrote in an emailed statement. “The Health Technology Ecosystem is an open, voluntary technical collaboration. CMS will continue working with patients, providers, payers, technology organizations, and other stakeholders to make health information more accessible and useful to the Americans it serves.”

The FDA did not respond to a request for comment.

The Conversation Begins

The behind-the-scenes effort to funnel more Americans to AI-powered health apps began in August 2025 in the Slack workspace.

“Welcome all!” Gleason wrote. “Please be sure to read the Code of Conduct and see the Channel list as well to help you find channels that are relevant to you.”

Gleason is best known for serving as the acting administrator of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, as it gained access to millions of Americans’ sensitive personal and financial data, including at the Social Security Administration.

As her work with DOGE wound down last year, Gleason welcomed a variety of tech leaders, investors, and entrepreneurs to the chat room.

The Slack workspace’s participants include representatives from major digital wellness companies like Oura Health, AI companies like Palantir, and investment outfits like 8VC, a venture capital firm associated with Kennedy’s son Finn. While the Slack’s member count has ballooned to 1,700 over the past year, only a handful of patient advocates, doctors, and hospital representatives are in it.

The code of conduct Gleason shared on Slack in August 2025 documented that CMS had quietly established a technology working group.

The document also set ground rules for the Slack workspace, noting that the group does not constitute an “advisory committee,” nor would it be used “to obtain advice or recommendations for HHS, CMS, or any HHS/CMS officials.” The code also advises that federal employees “are prohibited from endorsing any product, service, or enterprise.”

Joseph Daval, a former FDA lawyer who is now a research specialist at Harvard Medical School, reviewed messages from the Slack workspace at the request of KFF Health News. He said the chat room in some ways resembles a federal advisory committee — an independent panel that can be formally stood up by an agency head, Congress, or the president to ensure agencies act in the best interest of the public rather than industry.

The law on advisory committees “was passed in part out of a concern about interest group capture, about anticompetitive capture of agency policymaking, about corruption,” he said.

Daval said the chat group looks like a committee, with members interacting with one another and building consensus on preferred courses of action.

If it were a formal advisory committee, though, Daval said, it would be subject to certain “membership requirements having to do with independence and fair balance.”

A ‘Sales Engine’

Over a series of video calls, CMS officials promised tech leaders participating in the Slack workspace that the agency would promote their health apps.

Jacob Shiff, the chief AI and technology officer at CMS’ Innovation Center, told industry representatives in a Zoom meeting in February that he hoped the agency’s work would be a “sales engine” for the health apps.

“We’re going to have a directory of all the organizations,” Shiff said in a video recording reviewed by KFF Health News. “The people on this call who hopefully will have amazing solutions that work will be the winners, and you have every incentive to obviously drive down your costs so you can be extremely profitable and scale. So hopefully we’re selling — or enabling you guys to thrive.”

A recording of the call had been publicly available through a Google Drive link but was made private the day after KFF Health News asked about comments made during the meeting.

CMS did not respond to queries about how the agency has decided which AI-powered health apps appear in the Medicare App Library or why federal employees have promised to promote the products.

Days before publicly launching the Medicare App Library, CMS officials promised AI tech leaders during an informal meeting that the new webpage would become an important distribution channel for health apps because Medicare enrollees would place trust in products listed on the CMS website.

“If medicare.gov is promoting it, for lack of a better word, then yeah, it would be an app that I would trust and explore,” CMS’ Taylor said during the April 7 meeting, channeling enrollees, according to a transcript of the call.

The Medicare App Library’s webpage encourages older and disabled Americans to manage health conditions such as obesity, cancer, or diabetes using two dozen AI-driven apps developed by some of the world’s largest corporations, including Microsoft and Google. Many of the apps promise in their product descriptions to give insight, perform analyses, or develop plans that will help patients lose weight or manage diabetes.

CMS officials have suggested to tech representatives during at least two meetings this year that those apps will be prioritized for a new agency program that reimburses companies for AI chatbot advice or wearable device tracking, according to video recordings.

CMS has not publicly divulged all the criteria it uses to decide which apps are listed in its library, but the webpage promotes apps still in their infancy.

Among them is Slothwise, a health app launched this year from a San Francisco apartment by a young, self-described biotech entrepreneur and triple citizen of Russia, Israel, and the U.S. The app says it “knows your whole health” by analyzing medical records and tracking health data for $9.99 a month. It has been reviewed on the Apple and Google app stores only a handful of times.

“I trusted slothwise with my health info because it was endorsed by medicare,” one reviewer wrote in a Google review in August. “Connecting info was smooth and I learned a lot about my health.”

In a statement, Slothwise CEO Sofia Sigal-Passeck did not answer questions about the size and medical expertise of her current team, nor about the availability of a doctor to consult with patients who use the app. The app, she said, is only “informational” at this time.

“I’ve spent years building at the intersection of AI and complex biological data,” Sigal-Passeck wrote in an email. “A small team is not the same thing as an inexperienced team. Slothwise is built by physicians, PhD researchers and engineers.”

‘No Regulation, No Rulemaking’

What’s often less clear — and buried deep in lengthy privacy policies — is that these apps are tapping into the intimate details of patients’ medical records to fuel their AI-driven analyses.

Tech vendors have lobbied the government to treat these apps, once they are vetted and authorized by a third-party organization, like a patient requesting records. That position gives apps sweeping access to pull sensitive health data from the national network through which providers electronically exchange medical records, called the Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement, or TEFCA.

A small but influential group of those tech company executives directly made the case to federal health officials during a formal meeting in May, arguing that when health apps request medical records they should be treated as if they are standing “in the shoes” of a patient.

On Slack, tech vendors have lobbied for a “frictionless pathway” for verified users, after they’ve consented once, that allows the app to gain limitless access to patients’ medical records from the TEFCA network.

Ryan Howells, a healthcare management consultant who lobbies for a Washington, D.C.-based digital health tech organization called the CARIN Alliance, has spearheaded an effort for patients — vis-à-vis apps — to more easily access medical records. He has regularly noted in Slack that health apps accessing TEFCA must be vetted by a third-party organization — one of which he sits on the board of — and agree to a code of conduct, developed by the alliance he lobbies for.

“What more can you do to have trust in these apps?” he wrote in a March Slack message, responding to concerns about how much patient consent is needed for apps to access medical records on the network.

Kristen Valdes, the CEO of b.well, a company that also connects apps to the TEFCA network, made a similar argument.

“My opinion is that we need to stop protecting patients from themselves,” she wrote in the same message thread. “Full stop.”

Howells did not respond to an emailed list of questions from KFF Health News. In an interview, Valdes told KFF Health News that her comment reflected her frustration at the “paternalism” of the healthcare system, which she said has historically made it difficult for patients to access their records. Although, she said, “there are going to be good and bad apps.”

Other tech leaders worried in Slack about the approach.

One startup founder cautioned the group to think about the pitfalls of giving health apps broad leeway to pull medical records.

“We might all be good, honest actors here but security & privacy systems have to be designed around the presence of malicious actors – especially if we want this system to scale up to thousands of apps,” wrote Jason Kulatunga, who runs Fasten Health, a medical records management platform.

Gleason, the CMS official, has publicly championed the vision shared by Howells and Valdes. In her speeches, she frequently urges doctors to accept patient medical records directly from apps and calls on them to “Kill the Clipboard,” also the title of a 2025 white paper co-authored by Howells that urges doctors' offices to abandon paper records.

Last month, Gleason spoke to a crowd gathered at a swanky hotel in Washington for an event hosted by the MAHA Institute, a think tank that supports Secretary Kennedy’s agenda. She laid out her work with tech companies over the past year as she discussed the Trump administration’s efforts to make medical records more digitally accessible.

As she told it, more Americans can now download an app and access their medical records.

“Once you’ve verified your identity you can just click a simple button and say, I’d like my medical records into whatever app I choose,” Gleason said.

She continued: “That was all done just — no regulation, no rulemaking — just by challenging industry to work together.”

Related reading: As Kennedy’s MAHA Ruptures Over His Corrupt Betrayals, Will Democrats Respond?

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

.


=

Why Is Trump Still Boosting AI? Because He Has Nothing Except The Bubble

Why Is Trump Still Boosting AI? Because He Has Nothing Except The Bubble

Will AI transform the economy? The jury is still out on that one: So far there is little evidence for either the massive job losses or the soaring productivity growth industry leaders threatened/promised, but it’s still early days.

But AI does seem to be transforming U.S. politics. I can’t think of a technology that has inspired so much hate across such a wide political spectrum. Even the leading AI companies are warning about the dangers of their technology and pleading for government regulation to slow it down.

Which makes it more than puzzling that Donald Trump is going all in on AI, claiming that concerns about its dangers are a “hoax” and opposing any kind of regulation.

In so doing, he’s taking a wildly unpopular position. Here’s recent polling from UMass Amherst:

Notice that even a large part of Trump’s base is deserting him on this issue, with a quarter of Republicans disapproving.

So why is Trump posting stuff like this?

Robert Reich has a good post on the subject, urging us to follow the money: As he notes, members of the Trump family have personal financial stakes in the industry. And one motive one should never, ever dismiss in current U.S. affairs is Trump’s personal greed.

I would, however, add two more points.

First, I think Reich is too glib in dismissing the idea that Trump imagines that he knows what he’s doing. “It can’t be,” Reich writes, “that he knows very much about AI.” But does he know that he doesn’t know? That Truth Social post above, in which Trump declares himself perfectly able to manage this wild new technology because he is a “STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT”, is like a textbook illustration of the Dunning-Kruger effect, in which incompetent people are highly confident in their own judgment because they’re too incompetent to realize that they’re incompetent.

Second, it’s important to realize how much Trump needs an AI boom.

Trump came into office believing that his tariffs would produce a huge boom in “manly” jobs. In fact, job growth has been weak — and more than all the job gains have gone to women. Meanwhile, tariffs have driven up consumer prices.

And then there’s the Iran war, which has been an economic as well as a strategic disaster. Diesel prices are now well above $6 a gallon. Trump officials love to say that gasoline was over $5 a gallon under Biden, which was true — for one week.

Yet one thing did seem to be going right under Trump II. Enthusiasm for AI was generating a huge investment boom and supporting stock prices. Trump officials, notably Scott Bessent, the Treasury Secretary — who Edward Luce of the Financial Times now dubs “the Pete Hegseth of the Treasury” (ouch) — had taken to claiming that AI will solve all their problems, ending inflation by reducing costs and curing the budget deficit by generating huge economic growth.

The backlash against AI, then, is taking away the one thing the Trumpists thought they had going for them. So in a way it’s understandable that Trump is trying desperately to hold on to the magic (and possibly endangering the future of humanity, but he doesn’t care about that.)

But of course it won’t work. The AI boom, once Trump’s last remaining political asset, is now a huge liability.

Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist and former professor at MIT and Princeton who now teaches at the City University of New York's Graduate Center. From 2000 to 2024, he wrote a column for The New York Times. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Paul Krugman.

Donald Trump

'High IQ' Trump Says Nobody But He Should Regulate Artificial Intelligence

President Donald Trump thinks that he should be in charge of overseeing and regulating artificial intelligence—not actual experts.

“The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades!” Trump wrote on Truth Social Monday.

He later added that “the only reason the AI/Data Center outburst is happening is because the United States is leading, by a lot, every other country.”

Similarly, Vice President JD Vance told reporters that AI companies who have voiced support for regulation seem “like a bit of a Trojan Horse.”

Trump and Vance’s comments are in response to an essay from Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, who called for a slowdown in AI development. He cited concerns about AI agents becoming unpredictable and outstripping the guardrails put in place by the companies that have created them.

Amodei also said that companies should have independent reviews of their operations and safety standards.

Other AI industry leaders voiced support for the essay, including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and even close Trump ally Elon Musk.

Trump’s proclamation that he’s a uniquely capable “high IQ” person who can understand the nuances and implications of advanced AI technology runs counter to what is known of Trump and his deep ignorance.

For instance, Trump has repeatedly attacked windmills, incorrectly arguing that the occasional lack of wind and even bird strikes could cause blackouts. He also claimed that Canada has a “very large faucet” that could be used to fight wildfires in California.

For years, Trump has argued that climate change—a globally acknowledged and quantified phenomenon—is merely a “hoax” created by China.

Both in his capacity as an entertainer and as president, Trump has never demonstrated the sort of intelligence required to deal with complex issues, let alone the possible fallout from something as powerful as AI.

In contrast to Trump’s call for no rules, multiple Democrats have been pushing for federal legislation that would provide guardrails for future AI developments.

In response, the AI industry has spent millions in elections through well-funded political action committees that oppose federal rules and oversight, pushing for the industry to police itself.

Trump and the GOP have tied themselves to AI interests, with figures like Musk as major donors to the party. But while the AI industry backs Republicans who oppose oversight, the public has shown bipartisan opposition to AI—particularly the construction of data centers.

Despite the public’s obvious opposition, Trump thinks he’s the only one capable of overseeing AI—just like he oversaw COVID-19, tariffs, and his war in Iran.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Dario Amodei

The Big Whine: Musk, Altman And Amodei Want Taxpayers To Save Them

When Elon Musk, Sam Altman, and Dario Amodei all tell us they are worried that their AI could do immense harm to the world, we should take notice. And when we take notice, we should remember that these are people who are known far more for their immense greed than their concern for humanity. And at least in the case of the first two, they are also world-class liars.

We need to keep these facts in mind when we think about their warnings that their AI can do something catastrophic to humanity. If they really have that concern, there seems an obvious solution: shut the company down.

It’s more than a bit bizarre that this option did not occur to these geniuses. Suppose a company producing fertilizer discovered that their product was a horrible carcinogen that could kill millions of people. It would be good to issue a warning to people who might have already consumed it and may have some of the fertilizer in stock, but this should go along with shutting down the company. What are we supposed to make of a fertilizer company that tells us they are producing a horrible carcinogen, but keep on belching the stuff out by the truckload? Something here doesn’t add up.

I don’t doubt that there is some possibility these AIs could conceivably do something immensely destructive and maybe even lead to human extinction, but how would we rate those odds compared to something like Donald Trump getting angry at another country and starting a nuclear war? With my very limited expertise in AI, I have to believe the Trump nuclear extinction risk is far greater than the AI extinction risk.

That may not calm many people, but let’s look at more likely events than total annihilation. There are a near-infinite number of catastrophes that AI could cause, which will not destroy humanity but will almost certainly wipe out the company immediately responsible, as well as the other less-than-innocent bystanders.

To throw out a few examples, suppose an AI system eats a bank or insurance company’s records in a way that they are almost impossible to reconstruct. Millions, or even tens of millions of people, may find the record of their accounts have vanished, or that getting their healthcare paid for is now an incredibly time-consuming burden, and maybe not even possible at all.

Alternatively, imagine an AI system captures a city’s traffic control system and starts to play games with stoplights at major intersections, leading to a flood of high-speed crashes. Or maybe one takes over an air traffic control system and randomly tells planes when it’s okay to take off or land.

Hopefully these scenarios are unlikely, but surely they are more likely than Elon Musk’s AI system going rogue (or maybe following orders) and systematically sending out robots to kill off any human they encounter. In these and many other disaster stories, the AI company involved would surely be pushed into bankruptcy due to lawsuits, and the top executives involved may well face criminal liability. The other AI companies would almost certainly face a similar fate as the risks of AI would become clear to even hedge fund and private equity partners.

Insofar as there is anything real in the AI gang of three’s warnings, this disastrous but non-extinction risk is almost certainly the issue. They presumably want the government to in some way protect them from liability for the damage they may potentially cause. If the point is simply to say that they have decided their systems are too dangerous to operate, they always have the incredibly simple solution available to them: shut them down. This might mean they are no longer absurdly rich, but them’s the breaks.

It also should be mentioned that these warnings are another way to advertise that they have super-sophisticated AI that can do amazing things; even destroy humanity. That may not be true, but it could be a good way to excite increasingly skeptical investors, especially as Anthropic and OpenAI are looking to do IPOs in the near future.

Of course, if the AI boys can get members of Congress sufficiently excited by their extinction warnings, they may be able to arrange new government regulation. This regulation would undoubtedly come with a heaping dose of subsidies for an industry that may never be profitable. Human extinction may be awful in the real world, but threatening it may be the best thing that ever happened to the AI industry.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack, from which this is reprinted with permission.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Trending

World