In 2026, Anthropic, the Vatican, OpenAI, and Congress are publishing competing blueprints for governing artificial intelligence. Anthropic’s policy argues for direct governance including third-party testing, model security obligations, incident reporting, and deployment thresholds tied to catastrophic risk, but has drawn political pushback; *The Economist* reported that David Sacks accused Anthropic of running a “sophisticated regulatory-capture strategy based on fearmongering.” The Vatican’s encyclical *Magnifica Humanitas* judges AI by whether it protects human dignity, truth, work, freedom, peace and the vulnerable, with Jill Lepore writing in *The New Yorker* that it makes a case for “placing moral concerns, and not profit, or competitive advantage, or efficiency, at the center of any discussion of artificial intelligence.” OpenAI’s 2025 Economic Blueprint and 2026 policy paper argue the United States needs infrastructure, talent, energy capacity and rules to lead, while Chris Lehane, OpenAI’s vice president for global affairs, stated on LinkedIn that their common theme is to “build an AI economy that is open, democratic, and broadly shared by building AI that is free, fair and safe.” The Great American AI Act discussion draft shows Congress testing how those claims might become agencies, audits, disclosures, workforce programs and enforcement.