On March 25, 2026, a potential restructuring of U.S. federal technology policy came to light: multiple media reports indicated that the Trump administration was planning to establish a federal technology advisory committee, inviting prominent Silicon Valley leaders such as Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang, and Oracle founder Larry Ellison to participate. According to sources cited by the Wall Street Journal and other media, this organization will focus on providing advice to the White House on artificial intelligence and broader technology issues, suggesting that tech giants, which have long been called to testify on the other side of congressional hearings, might be formally embedded into the decision-making core for the first time. Many key details of the committee—including its scope of authority, exact membership, and whether the White House has officially confirmed it—remain undisclosed, leaving some information at the level of media and secondhand reports, adding considerable suspense to this restructuring of power linking Silicon Valley directly to Washington.

Silicon Valley Giants Queue Up: Who is Converging on the White House?

Currently, the potential members that can be cross-identified from multiple reports mainly include several highly symbolic figures: President Trump himself will serve as the political core of this structure, while the tech camp will be represented by the social and advertising empire's representative Zuckerberg, the king of computing power and chips Huang, and the player in traditional enterprise software and government contracts Ellison. The Wall Street Journal and crypto and tech media, citing unnamed sources, stated that venture capitalist David Sacks is also seen as a potential key role, rumored to serve as co-chair, though this claim is still marked as "to be verified," and cannot be written into the official narrative as a certainty.

From the publicly available information, the committee's direction is quite clear: focusing primarily on artificial intelligence policy and key technology issues, it may propose recommendations regarding innovation regulation, infrastructure investment, and foreign technology competition. Some tweets and market interpretations have included "crypto policy recommendations" in its potential agenda, but due to the lack of authoritative documentation to back up relevant statements, this can only be treated as a direction that needs further validation and cannot be written into a fixed function. As for whether more tech or finance executives will be included, the circulated claim of potentially expanding to a "24-member scale" also comes solely from scattered social media disclosures, and until confirmed by the White House or official documents, this portion must be regarded as an intentionally suspended blank.

It is noteworthy that Trump and these tech leaders are not natural allies: during and after his presidency, he publicly criticized Silicon Valley platforms for their "censorship" of conservative speech, while platforms represented by Zuckerberg have long been viewed by establishment Republicans as entities that need to be "tamed." Huang and Ellison maintain a complex and pragmatic interaction with various factions in Washington on topics such as supply chain management with China, support for the U.S. military and government cloud computing, and are now collectively pulled into a consultancy team led by the president, laying the groundwork for future games surrounding interest exchanges, policy biases, and regulatory boundaries.

From Silicon Valley to Washington: The Long-Term Logic of Technology Power Spillover

If we pull back from the personnel arrangement itself, we can see a trend that has been going on for several years: the power of tech companies is no longer confined to product forms and market valuations but is steadily infiltrating public decision-making through lobbying, policy research, and think tank cooperation. Companies like Meta, driven by social and advertising models, NVIDIA, centered on chip and computing power infrastructure, and Oracle, deeply bound to government and large enterprise information systems, find their technical and market advantages naturally translate into bargaining chips for rule-making authority as the AI narrative becomes the main focus of national competition.

In terms of AI infrastructure and cloud services, Meta controls a vast data entry point through its content distribution networks and large model application scenarios, NVIDIA occupies key nodes in training and inference processes thanks to its GPUs and computing power stack, while Oracle plays the role of a "bottom-level pipeline" amidst databases, cloud services, and long-term government contracts. When the federal government needs to reach a consensus on issues such as computing power control, cross-border data, security audits, and the boundaries between military and civilian technologies, the business landscapes of these three companies are almost naturally tied to the policy toolbox—from procurement standards to export controls, and to subsidies and tax breaks, each tweak in decision-making could potentially reshape their profit structures.

Thus, the current discussions about the "Technology Advisory Committee" have sparked intense controversy, centered around a simple yet sharp question: When regulatory subjects become rule suggesters, who defines the boundaries of power, and who represents the public interest? Crypto and tech media have summarized this with a vivid remark—"This is the latest attempt to directly embed Silicon Valley's power structure into Washington." In this narrative framework, the committee is not a neutral technical advisory group, but resembles an institutional interface that rigidly welds industry vested interests with national policy levers, its legitimacy requiring stricter scrutiny than that of traditional presidential advisory groups.

AI Arms Race and National Security: The Urgent Motivations Behind the Advisory Group

To understand why Trump has chosen this moment to prominently establish a tech advisory team, one must place this move within the larger context of global AI competition and security games. As the U.S. continues to up the ante in the AI race against economic powers like China and the EU—from computing power blockades to export controls, to direct government investments in cutting-edge tech projects, the "AI arms race" has become the main battlefield for domestic and foreign policy. For Trump, quickly building a tech advisory "national team" covering platforms, chips, and enterprise services around 2026 serves as a signal to showcase America's technological dominance abroad and a political tool for integrating industrial capital and voter sentiments domestically.

Within this proposed advisory array, the roles and vested interests of Meta, NVIDIA, and Oracle are highly differentiated: Meta controls global content distribution and advertising algorithms for a massive user base, positioning itself at the forefront of AI-generated content, information warfare, and public opinion governance; NVIDIA almost monopolizes high-performance AI chips and related software stacks, being one of the price setters for global computing power layouts and cloud service cost curves; Oracle firmly holds a seat in databases, security compliance, and long-term government contracts as a deep contractor of "national data infrastructure." This web of interests suggests that once policy discussions commence around algorithm transparency, data security standards, and technology exports for defense purposes, the "expert opinions" from all parties are likely to be closely tied to their own business layouts.

On issues such as algorithm transparency, boundary of model responsibility, and personal vs. corporate data sovereignty, platform and computing power giants naturally tend to maximize technical and business flexibility, delaying or downplaying potential hard constraints that may increase compliance costs; yet, at the same time, they are motivated to advocate for stronger export restrictions and domestic subsidies in the realms of international technological competition and national security, to solidify their core positions within the "AI national team." The tension between power concentration and national competitiveness is becoming increasingly acute—on one side, the White House hopes to rapidly form a viable technical roadmap by relying on industry leaders; on the other hand, it must prevent a few large companies from using the "national security" narrative to lock regulatory and resource allocations firmly within their own control.

Shadows of the Crypto Market: Gold, Altcoins, and New Currency Narratives

The restructuring of technological power structures resonates not only in political and industrial spheres. At the same moment on March 25, 2026, the crypto market provided another reflection: according to statistics from Jinse Finance, XAUT perpetual contract trading volume surged to $6.4 billion, setting a historical high, as the hedge function of "digital gold" was sharply amplified against a backdrop of geopolitical tension. Meanwhile, multiple media outlets confirmed that Coinbase launched spot trading for Perle (PRL), with funds pursuing new stories and increments while also testing the risk edges within high-volatility assets—hedging and speculative sentiments coexisting in the market.

This picture mirrors broader macro sentiments: Iran firmly rebutted U.S. claims concerning ceasefire agreements as lies through official state media, further elevating market uncertainties about the safety of the dollar system and traditional assets in the Middle East. In this context, capital is simultaneously seeking on-chain hedging tools linked to gold through assets like XAUT while chasing the rhythm of newly launched coins on Coinbase, reflecting a simultaneous pricing of systemic risks and structural opportunities.

On the payment and currency front, a joint report released by Visa and Dune (based on a single source) provided a noteworthy conclusion: non-U.S. dollar-denominated on-chain settlement assets are accelerating to become the "local currency" of the crypto ecosystem, as different regions have begun to disrupt the traditional dollar-dominated clearing framework with digital efforts around local currencies or diversified assets. Although the report's specific statistical methods and underlying tabular data are not elaborated here, the directional trend highly aligns with the current logic of tech and financial multipolarity.

In this backdrop, the market naturally turns its attention to the tech advisory team led by Trump, attempting to foresee its potential influence on friendly policies towards AI and crypto: on one hand, the entry of industrial giants may promote a more "predictable" regulatory framework for computing power, data, and on-chain finance; on the other hand, the committee currently lacks information on its public agenda design and weighting distribution, especially regarding how much discourse power on-chain assets and financial technology hold within it, leaving the public completely unable to judge. The speculative space exists, but there remains a considerable distance from the "hard information" that can be written into a model.

Who Will Restrain the Technology Advisors: Overlapping Regulators and the Regulated

All discussions surrounding this tech advisory committee ultimately circle back to an unresolved core variable: What actual powers does it hold? Currently, there is a near-complete lack of disclosure regarding its statutory authority scope, its relationship with existing White House technology policy offices and related federal departments, and it is unclear whether its recommendations possess any kind of "default priority." If it is merely a loose advisory platform, its political symbolic significance might far exceed its substantive impact; however, once granted the "entry rights" into major technology and security issues, it could become a central hub for interdepartmental coordination, leading to a structural rearrangement of federal technology governance.

From the perspective of conflict of interest, the matter becomes more complicated: when executives from large technology companies that control massive user data, computing power infrastructure, and government contracts are invited to help formulate industry standards, conventional avoidance systems and information disclosure requirements will come under pressure. How to define which proposed "technical necessities" raised in meetings represent public interests and which provide subtle advantages to their own products and business models? Will meeting minutes be made public? Is the transmission chain between policy recommendations and subsequent executive orders transparent? These are hard constraints in reality, not merely abstract ethical debates.

Surrounding this power embedding, Congress, regulatory agencies, and civil society organizations have been viewed by many analysts as potential counterbalancing forces. On the one hand, Congress can demand that the White House disclose the committee's operational rules and conflict management mechanisms through hearings, inquiries, and legislative means; on the other hand, existing regulatory agencies may fear that their authority in technology and financial innovation sectors is being marginalized, leading to tensions in jurisdictional distribution with the new structure. Civil society oversight organizations and media can impose external constraints on the actual influence of the committee through information transparency lawsuits and investigative reporting.

For the crypto and broader fintech sectors, the spillover effects of this power restructuring should not be ignored: should the tech advisory committee evolve in practice into a "gatekeeper for innovation and compliance"—whether in symbolic significance or actual approval power—the market will quickly magnify any policy signals related to AI, data, and on-chain finance resulting in a re-pricing of investments and asset prices around its movements. The current uncertainty lies in the fact that we still lack operational details on how it will engage in specific issues; this information vacuum itself could become the fuel for volatility.

Betting in Uncertainty: Long-Term Variables in Washington's New Game

Overall, Trump's push to bring tech giants into the federal decision-making spotlight is not just a personnel "breakthrough," but an attempt to reshape the long-term bets on American technology trajectories and power structures: by bringing companies like Meta, NVIDIA, and Oracle—deeply embedded in AI infrastructure—closer to the White House, he politically seeks the support of high-tech capital and strategically attempts to consolidate America's advantages in the global AI competition through a "national team" approach. However, this embedding also implies that for a long time to come, the formulation of U.S. tech policy will be increasingly harder to separate from the commercial interests of a few giants.

Currently, many key pieces of information surrounding this move remain absent: the committee's legal authority and operational boundaries have not been disclosed, the full list of members still holds significant uncertainty, and there is no authoritative document disclosing whether formal confirmation and authorization have been completed at the White House level. In the absence of this information, the market struggles to provide precise pricing for the policy trajectory over the coming years, oscillating instead between emotion and expectations.

In the foreseeable future, at least three competing paths exist: first, tech giants play the role of "technical advisors" in the committee, helping the U.S. maintain a lead in AI and related cutting-edge technologies, in exchange for further centralization in the name of national competitiveness; second, conflict of interests and power rent-seeking become increasingly magnified in practice, triggering public and political backlash, forcing Congress and regulatory agencies to implement harsh corrections to this structure; third, this committee is diluted under institutional checks and balances into one of many advisory platforms, with its symbolic significance far exceeding actual policy focus, ultimately becoming an optional piece in the power landscape.

For participants in the crypto and tech markets, a more pragmatic strategy would be to focus not on scattered leaks and secondhand news but on closely monitoring several forthcoming hard signals: official documents regarding the committee from the White House and federal registration systems, whether Congress holds hearings on its powers and conflicts of interest, and any changes in the roles of major regulatory agencies in the AI and fintech regulatory agenda. Only when these institutional puzzles gradually fall into place will the real contours of tech power entering the White House shift from speculation to quantifiable variables.

Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX welfare group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance welfare group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。