Microsoft president Brad Smith is calling for urgent rules governing artificial intelligence, and he argues that everyday consumer products like milk and washing machines face more oversight than the companies building AI. His central claim is that the United Kingdom, not the United States or the European Union, is best positioned to lead on global safety standards.
Speaking on a recent BBC podcast, Smith described AI as both a “weapon and a tool” that is putting the world’s cybersecurity at risk. He said the “moment has arrived” to institute global safety rules, and he believes the UK is the country to drive them forward.
Why the UK Has an Edge on AI Safety
Smith’s argument rests on the work of Britain’s AI Security Institute (AISI), launched in 2023. The institute receives access to major models from U.S. frontier labs before they are deployed and has quickly become a leader in AI safety testing.
That role has come under threat in recent weeks. U.S. president Donald Trump has warned against “globalist” organizations, which he claims are interfering with American companies. Last month, he reportedly asked Anthropic and OpenAI to withhold new models from British testers. However, AISI confirmed on Monday that it is still able to access and test the latest models.
Despite the president’s pushback, Smith argued the UK can regulate AI in ways the U.S. cannot.
“In Washington, D.C., people don’t look at the U.K. and they don’t look at London the way they look at Brussels,” he told the BBC. “That’s a strength.”
A Different Kind of Regulatory Voice
Smith’s point is about perception as much as policy. Brussels carries heavy regulatory baggage in Washington, D.C., where EU rules are often viewed as bureaucratic overreach. London, by contrast, does not trigger the same reflex — which could make the UK a more credible broker for international AI safety standards.
Tech Leaders Push for Slower AI Development
Smith’s comments come amid rallying cries from tech leaders, including Anthropic’s Dario Amodei and OpenAI’s Sam Altman, to slow the pace of AI development. Their calls follow several incidents where AI agents went rogue.
Last month, Trump hosted tech leaders from OpenAI, Anthropic, Nvidia, AMD, SpaceX, Meta, and Google at the White House to discuss AI safety. They signed a “morally binding” document in which they agreed to work with “independent auditors” to assess the safety and capabilities of their AI models.
Smith called the document a “good step,” but said it stops short of the type of regulation that is necessary. The problem with voluntary self-regulation, he explained, is that only the “good companies” will comply.
“It’s the companies that are not as responsible that you need to worry about,” he said.
The AI Safety Rules Smith Wants to See
Smith outlined several specific rules he would like to see put into place. Together, they point toward a more formal, enforceable framework for AI oversight.
Breach notification: A legal obligation to alert an organization if its system was breached by rogue AI agents.
Outside evaluation: AI labs getting the approval of outside evaluators before an AI product is released.
Kill switches: Mechanisms to pause or slow down AI if humans lose control of it. Smith spoke positively about this idea.
These proposals go beyond voluntary commitments. They would place legal duties on AI developers rather than relying on corporate goodwill.
Balancing Innovation and Safety
The debate over UK AI regulation is not just about safety — it is also about competitiveness. Smith’s position is that regulation and innovation can coexist, provided the rules are clear and consistently applied. A predictable legal environment, he suggested, gives companies the confidence to build and deploy AI without fearing sudden changes in the rules.
Smith framed the path forward in characteristically measured terms.
“Let’s speak calmly, maybe even softly, but firmly, and start to bring people together,” he said. “I hope that’s the role we can play as a company. I hope that’s the role the U.K. can play as a country.”
For Smith, the UK’s combination of technical expertise, early access to frontier models, and a less polarizing international reputation makes it uniquely suited to convene the world’s AI players. Whether Britain can hold that role while Washington pushes back remains an open question.
What This Means for the Future of AI Oversight
Microsoft’s stance adds significant corporate weight to the push for binding AI rules. It also signals that some of the largest AI developers are willing to accept regulation — as long as it is applied evenly across the industry.
The coming months will test whether the UK can translate its early advantage in AI safety testing into lasting global influence. Trump’s reported requests to withhold models from British testers suggest the path will not be smooth. Yet AISI’s continued access to the latest models shows the testing relationship has survived, at least for now.
If Smith’s vision holds, the UK could become the neutral ground where AI safety rules are written — not in Brussels, and not in Washington.
