Former White House press secretary listed as adviser to AI mining startup

By Splitfeed EditorialLast updated Oct 16, 2026, 20:10 UTC

On October 16, 2026, Wired reported that Katie Zacharia, a former White House press secretary, had been publicly listed as an adviser to a rare-earths mining startup that uses artificial intelligence as a core part of its extraction process. The company is linked to Kristi Noem, the former governor of South Dakota who served as Secretary of Homeland Security. Despite the public listing, both Zacharia and the company have denied that she ever had any working relationship with the organization.

The story matters for several reasons that reach beyond a simple clerical error. Rare-earth mineral extraction is a strategically sensitive area, particularly as the United States seeks to reduce dependence on foreign supply chains for materials used in electronics, defense systems, and clean energy technology. A startup applying AI to that problem, and operating with political connections at the level of a cabinet official, sits at an intersection of technology, national security, and government influence. The unexplained listing of a high-profile political figure as an adviser, followed by denials from both sides, raises questions about how the company represented itself to potential investors, partners, or regulators, and whether those representations had any material effect.

None of the three camps, Pro-AI, Anti-AI, or Middle Ground, have published reactions to this story yet. The Pro-AI camp would typically treat AI-assisted mining as a promising application of the technology to a genuine national priority, and would likely focus attention on the governance question rather than the underlying technology. The Anti-AI camp would typically use a story like this to highlight how AI branding can be attached to ventures in ways that obscure accountability, with the false adviser listing serving as an example of the broader credibility problems that surround AI-themed startups. The Middle Ground camp would typically argue that the technology itself is neither validated nor discredited by this episode, and that the focus should be on transparency standards for companies making claims about both their technology and their personnel.

The detail most worth tracking is whether any regulatory body, investor group, or congressional committee asks the company to account for how the listing appeared and what representations were made alongside it. A formal inquiry or public filing would clarify whether this was an administrative mistake or something with broader consequences.