Introduction
The Trump Administration prioritized securing American leadership in artificial intelligence (AI) by adopting a deregulatory approach, contrasting with the previous administration’s focus on oversight [6]. This shift involved significant regulatory changes to shape the AI landscape, aiming to enhance the US’s global AI leadership and address stakeholder concerns.
Description
Securing American leadership in artificial intelligence (AI) remains a priority for the Trump Administration [1] [3], which has shifted towards a deregulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the previous administration’s emphasis on oversight [6]. Significant regulatory changes have been implemented to shape the AI landscape, including the rescission of a previous executive order focused on AI safety, security [1] [3] [5] [8], privacy [3] [6], consumer protection [3] [5], and competition [2] [3] [6] [7]. Following President Trump’s Executive Order aimed at enhancing the US’s global AI leadership [4], a new AI Action Plan was developed within 180 days to bolster the US’s AI dominance. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) has actively sought public feedback, receiving 8,755 comments on various AI policy topics, which will inform this plan. While the comments are not fully disclosed, they underscore significant stakeholder concerns, particularly regarding the use of copyrighted materials for training AI models [4]. A coalition of Hollywood creators has opposed the fair use exemption [4], advocating for stronger copyright protections and proper licensing agreements [4]. In response to the administration’s pro-growth AI policy, major tech firms [2], including Meta [1] [6], Google [5] [6] [8], and OpenAI [5] [6], have intensified lobbying efforts [5], seeking federal support to block state AI laws and affirm the legality of using copyrighted material for training AI models [8]. They argue that their methods transform information rather than replicate it and are also seeking access to federal data, easier energy resources [8], and tax incentives [6] [8].
Key directives from the previous order remain in effect [1], including the National Security Memorandum on AI [1], which emphasizes the rapid adoption of AI technologies for national security and calls for regulatory changes to streamline procurement processes for AI products [1]. The Department of Commerce has introduced new export controls under the “Framework for Artificial Intelligence Diffusion,” which categorizes countries into three tiers and regulates the importation of advanced semiconductors essential for AI development. Concerns have been raised that these rules may hinder AI investment and development [2], particularly from countries like Poland [2], which fears that data center investments from major tech firms could be adversely affected [2]. Indian officials have also sought discussions on accessing AI chips [2]. Tech companies have called for a reassessment of these export controls [4], arguing that current regulations may hinder US economic competitiveness [4]. White House officials are deliberating on the implementation of the framework [2], with some suggesting the elimination of the tiered system and computing power caps in favor of a more flexible export licensing approach for most countries [2]. An open comment period is available for feedback before enforcement begins.
The Administration is also focusing on AI infrastructure [1], exemplified by the Stargate Project, which aims to invest $500 billion in the necessary physical and virtual infrastructure to support AI advancements [1]. This initiative seeks to streamline access to essential resources [6], aligning with the lobbying efforts of tech giants for reduced regulatory restrictions [6]. The active Infrastructure Order directs federal agencies to expedite the construction of AI data centers and clean energy facilities [1], although implementation has faced delays [1].
A significant initiative involves invoking the Defense Production Act to collect information from private companies developing dual-use AI models [1], although finalization of related reporting requirements is still pending [1]. Major AI stakeholders have expressed the need for a centralized federal regulatory framework to avoid a fragmented state-level regulatory environment that could increase compliance costs [3]. This concern is compounded by the potential for decentralized state-level regulation with minimal federal oversight, which could lead to regulatory incoherence amid competing federal and state interests. Additionally, a group of state legislators has suggested that state-level AI regulations could inform federal policy. Civil rights organizations are advocating for audits of AI systems to prevent discrimination [5], while the Center for AI Policy has emphasized the need for third-party audits to address national security vulnerabilities [5], arguing that consumer protection standards should apply equally to AI products [5]. There are suggestions to redefine the role of the AI Safety Institute to facilitate navigation of national security and economic implications for companies [3], with the Administration considering maintaining some regulatory functions to establish baseline safety and testing standards while fostering innovation. Ultimately, targeted federal intervention may still be necessary to achieve regulatory coherence in the evolving AI landscape, especially as concerns about disinformation, discrimination in automated processes [8], and heightened risks of cyberattacks grow amid a less prioritized focus on safety and responsible AI. Critics warn that the shift towards deregulation could lead to significant challenges, including job displacement [6], ethical violations [6], and increased socio-economic disparities [6], highlighting the ongoing debate about balancing innovation with public welfare and ethical considerations [6].
Conclusion
The Trump Administration’s deregulatory approach to AI policy has significant implications for the US’s global leadership in AI. While it aims to foster innovation and economic growth, it also raises concerns about regulatory coherence, ethical standards, and socio-economic impacts. The ongoing debate underscores the need to balance innovation with public welfare and ethical considerations, as the AI landscape continues to evolve.
References
[1] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/assessing-throughlines-in-the-trump-4880984/
[2] https://qz.com/trump-administration-ai-diffusion-rules-chips-nvidia-1851772199
[3] https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/blogs/wilmerhale-privacy-and-cybersecurity-law/20250402-assessing-throughlines-in-the-trump-administrations-ai-regulatory-approach
[4] https://www.mlstrategies.com/insights-center/viewpoints/54031/2025-03-28-trump-administration-receives-8755-comments-ai-action
[5] https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/artificial-intelligence/emboldened-by-trump-artificial-intelligence-companies-lobby-for-fewer-rules-9904391/
[6] https://opentools.ai/news/ai-giants-advocate-deregulation-in-trump-era
[7] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5198926
[8] https://brandequity.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/digital/trump-push-ai-cos-for-lighter-rules-now/119531080
