In the U.S. presidential race, AI policy is emerging as a battleground, with both candidates emphasizing American leadership in technology, yet taking distinctly different paths to get there. While the methods may differ, the aim is the same: to secure America’s edge in artificial intelligence as a national asset—especially when it comes to countering China's influence.
Vice President Kamala Harris’s approach mirrors the current administration’s focus on a “safe” AI framework, adding layers of accountability around both national security and public interest. Harris has been clear that safety standards in AI mean more than preventing catastrophic risks; they include addressing how AI affects democracy, privacy, and social stability. Biden's recent Executive Order on AI exemplifies this, outlining principles for privacy and transparency, while committing to a comprehensive national security review of AI. We’ve seen the groundwork laid here with initiatives like the U.S. AI Safety Institute and the National AI Research Resource (NAIRR), moves aimed at securing public support for an AI landscape that, while pushing for global leadership, doesn’t sacrifice safety for speed.
This approach, though, faces strong opposition from Trump’s campaign. Trump has vowed to rescind Biden’s Executive Order if elected, labeling it an imposition of “radical ideas” on American innovation. His stance aligns with a Republican platform that leans toward minimal federal intervention, framing regulatory moves as hindrances to tech growth. His administration’s track record on AI policy shows a similar focus on dominance in national security but veers away from binding regulation. Trump’s first-term Executive Order on AI leaned into funding research, creating national AI institutes, and guiding the use of AI within federal agencies—echoing Biden’s policies but without the regulatory weight.
Both candidates agree that AI is a critical asset in maintaining U.S. supremacy in national security, but Harris and Biden’s strategy of embedding safety into AI policy is likely to give way to a more security-centered conversation if Trump takes office. His allies in Silicon Valley—figures like Elon Musk and Marc Andreessen—have expressed support for a less-regulated AI environment, championing projects akin to military “Manhattan Projects” managed by industry rather than government. Trump’s pro-business stance also signals an end to the Biden administration’s recent antitrust efforts that have challenged big tech’s power. Curiously, Trump’s VP pick, JD Vance, has indicated some support for the current Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust agenda, showing an unexpected nod to oversight that may hint at future divergences within the administration itself.
Within the federal framework, industry players like OpenAI, NVIDIA, IBM, and Alphabet are already guiding AI governance. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo has become a linchpin in U.S. tech diplomacy, working closely with industry leaders even as civil society groups voice concerns over the limited presence of public-interest advocates. Given Congress’s current gridlock, real AI governance authority is likely to continue with departments like Commerce, which lacks regulatory power but has sway through strategic partnerships. A Harris administration would likely keep this status quo, collaborating with AI firms that have endorsed regulatory standards, while Trump’s team, aligning with his deregulatory push, might lean more heavily on “little tech” and industry-led strategies.
Internationally, both candidates are playing defense against China. America’s export controls on semiconductors, extended earlier this year, underscore the push to keep Chinese technology at bay. Allied nations—Japan, the Netherlands, and South Korea among them—have raised eyebrows at the U.S.'s economic motivations behind the restrictions. But Harris and Trump both know that the U.S. needs to cement its tech standards as the global benchmark, an objective that won’t waver no matter who wins.
As Americans head to the polls today, the future of AI policy hangs in the balance. Both candidates are committed to the U.S. leading the charge, but their divergent paths—regulation versus deregulation, safety versus security—reflect two starkly different visions of what leadership in AI should look like. Either way, the focus remains firmly on an AI strategy that not only secures American interests but also keeps pace with a rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape.
**
How do you see US AI policy developing under a new administration? What would you like to see happen with AI during the next presidential term?
The above is an article I wrote for my newsletter, ‘The Cognitive Courier’. If you enjoyed it, subscribe to read more here.
[link] [comments]