Dario presents two options for regulating AI: pass new legislation (which he notes will take time), or grant the AI labs an antitrust waiver that allows them to coordinate on regulation themselves. While both are likely preferable to no regulation, there is a real third option: the executive could use existing authorities to impose certain meaningful regulations on the frontier labs today. To build a frontier model regulatory regime with existing authorities, the government would have to get a little creative, but a lot could get done: - The Defense Production Act could be used to mandate reporting on model capabilities, and potentially to mandate testing; - Export controls (particularly U.S.-person controls, which also apply to covered activities inside the United States) could be used to establish license requirements related to the release of models with sufficient WMD capabilities (e.g., biological weapons); - Procurement authorities could be used to require testing for any model that the government purchases; - ICTS authorities could be used to regulate Chinese models that fall outside the framework; - And IEEPA gives the government fairly broad powers related to anything with a foreign nexus. Such a patchwork regime wouldn't be perfect, would inevitably face some legal challenges, and would clearly be inferior to a robust regime established via legislation. But if such a regime was structured carefully and applied equally, the government could impose substantive regulations on frontier AI models today. And the more powerful AI models get, the firmer the legal footing of any regime that relies on these authorities. The reason the U.S. government hasn't imposed mandatory regulations on frontier AI models isn't because it lacks the authorities; it's because the White House lacks the political will. Hopefully that changes soon.