TL/DR –
The Trump administration has released an AI Action Plan, which describes artificial intelligence as a combination of an industrial revolution, an information revolution, and a renaissance. The plan calls for reduced regulations to spur AI innovation, faster construction of AI data centers, exporting AI technology stacks to US allies, and removing “ideological bias” from AI systems. The plan’s approach to AI policy differs from past US policies and could have significant impacts on both the US AI industry and global AI governance.
The Trump administration’s new AI Action Plan outlines a vision for artificial intelligence (AI) that includes cutting regulations, accelerating AI data center construction, promoting AI technology exports to US allies, and clearing ideological bias from AI systems. The plan’s impact on everything from AI policy to the global economy has become a hot topic. Here’s what our experts have to say:
Expert analysis jump links:
- Graham Brookie: Questions about AI implementation
- Trey Herr: The AI race destination
- Trisha Ray: AI international partnerships
- Nitansha Bansal: Progress for the AI supply chain
- Raul Brens: Leading AI through more than dominance
- Mark Scott: US and EU AI alignment
- Ananya Kumar and Nitansha Bansal: US plan vs. UK and EU
- Esteban Ponce de Leon: Proprietary vs. open-source models
- Joseph Webster: AI’s impact on energy
Graham Brookie: Questions about AI implementation
In an age of geopolitical competition and rapid technological change, AI is at the forefront. The AI Action Plan reflects this reality, having gone through a thorough policy process involving over 10,000 public comments. The policy recommendations are well-organized and establish connections between scientific, domestic, and international priorities. However, questions remain about the effective implementation of the Action Plan.
Graham Brookie is Vice President for Technology Programs and Strategy at the Atlantic Council.
Trey Herr: The AI race destination
The concept of an AI “race” is still unclear – what are we racing towards? The White House’s AI Action Plan has yet to resolve this question. The national security of the United States and its allies is composed of more than a single cutting-edge technology. It will be hard to say when we’ve won, or if it’s worth what we lose to get there.
Trey Herr is Senior Director of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative (CSI) at the Atlantic Council Technology Programs.
Trisha Ray: AI international partnerships
The AI Action Plan suggests full-stack AI export packages through industry consortia to meet global AI demand. However, the US’s ability to export full-stack AI solutions is limited by a broad export control regime. If the United States seeks real alignment with allies and partners, it must outline a vision for global AI governance.
Trisha Ray is an Associate Director and Resident Fellow at the Atlantic Council’s GeoTech Center.
Nitansha Bansal: Progress for the AI supply chain
The AI Action Plan’s focus on the full AI stack is welcome. It also recognizes the importance of the open source and open weight AI models. The administration understands that competitiveness in AI will not be achieved solely by domesticating the AI supply chain, but also by translating domestic AI capabilities into national power more efficiently and effectively.
Nitansha Bansal is the Assistant Director of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative.
Raul Brens: Leading AI through more than dominance
The AI Action Plan makes it clear that the United States isn’t just trying to win the AI race, but also to influence the track unilaterally. However, an alliance is built on trust, not just dominance. Building this trust will require collaborating to respond to the ways AI shapes our societies, rather than solely focusing on growth.
Raul Brens Jr. is the Director of the GeoTech Center.
Joseph Webster: AI’s impact on energy
Two elements of the AI Action Plan show bipartisan promise: expanding the electricity grid and funding “leapfrog” dual-use batteries. Both these initiatives could enhance the capabilities of autonomous vehicles and other critical military platforms.
Joseph Webster is a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center.
Mark Scott: US and EU AI alignment
While the United States and EU agree on separate domestic-focused AI industrial policy agendas, they disagree on how those approaches are scaled internationally. This may become a pain point in the ongoing transatlantic relationship on technology. Finding a path forward is now a top short-term priority.
Mark Scott is a Senior Resident Fellow at the Atlantic Council Technology Programs.
Ananya Kumar and Nitansha Bansal: US plan vs. UK and EU
The new AI Action Plan, like those from the European Union and the United Kingdom, focuses on winning the AI race. However, each jurisdiction has a unique interpretation of this “competition” and uses a distinct combination of industrial, trade, investment, and regulatory policy tools.
Ananya Kumar is Deputy Director for Future of Money at the GeoEconomics Center. Nitansha Bansal is Assistant Director of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative.
Esteban Ponce de Leon: Proprietary vs. open-source models
The AI Action Plan explicitly frames model superiority as essential to US dominance. However, this creates tensions within the US ecosystem. The plan’s emphasis on open-source models suggests a more complex competitive landscape. It indicates that the ultimate competitive advantage may lie in the ability to build dependent ecosystems where US AI becomes the essential infrastructure for global innovation.
Esteban Ponce de León is a Resident Fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab
—
Read More US Economic News