Sunak’s Dual Role Between Government and Big Tech

When Rishi Sunak accepted advisory roles at Microsoft and Anthropic, he planted a flag at the crossroads of government and tech power. It’s not just a new job. It signals that the boundary between public duty and private influence is getting blurrier and that these appointments could reshape how technology policy is written, regulated, and enforced

The first thing you notice is the optics. Sunak is no ordinary former prime minister. His presence on the boards of leading AI and cloud firms gives those companies not just political access but the gravitas that comes when someone who once occupied No. 10 joins your side. It’s a move that hands influence to private actors at a moment governments globally are struggling to keep pace with AI’s growth Some will argue this is benign that industries need insight into regulation, and that Sunak’s experience matters. But from where I sit it smells of capture. Microsoft and Anthropic now get not just access to inside thinking about policy, but a player who knows budgets, legislative pressures, media narratives, and party politics intimately. That gives them a leg up when laws around AI, data, cloud monopolies, or competition are debated

Take, for instance, AI safety regulation. Countries are pushing rules about model transparency, governance, algorithmic audits, and risk controls. A former head of government advising a major AI company is perfectly placed to see upcoming regulatory proposals and influence industry positions before they reach parliament. That is an imbalance Some critics will point to precedents: former officials joining big corporations is not new. But there’s a difference when the business is AI which is not a passive consumer product but a powerful infrastructure that can shape economies, information flows, security, and power structures. The margin for error is narrower, the stakes higher Another angle: this risks undermining public trust. Citizens already worry about data privacy, algorithmic bias, surveillance, and monopolistic tech firms. When the person who once governed becomes part of that system, the perception is that rules are made by and for the powerful. The narrative shifts from “government regulating tech” to “government embedding with tech.”

Yet Sunak might claim he’s acting as a bridge bringing accountability and prudence into the industry. Maybe. But influence is rarely neutral. And the sector’s recent behavior suggests self-interest first

Here’s a real-world analogy: imagine a former war-time defense minister becoming a consultant for missile manufacturers. The public would fear that defense strategy, budgets, and export permissions might bend in favor of companies he now advises. The tech-policy space is no different. AI is the strategic domain of the 21st century Sunak’s move is not just symbolic. It may shift power in Washington, London, Brussels, Beijing. The next rules on AI licensing, liability, or access may come with footnotes bearing his influence. If we care about fair competition, transparency, and democratic checks on tech, this is a moment to push back not assume it’s all benign