Trump unveils AI plan that aims to clamp down on regulations and ‘bias’
Donald Trump’s newly unveiled AI plan aims to significantly reduce regulations on AI development and infrastructure while imposing explicit restrictions against what it labels “ideological bias” in federally procured AI systems. The plan’s primary objectives are to speed up U.S. dominance in artificial intelligence by fostering innovation, accelerating infrastructure (notably datacenters), and establishing American leadership in setting global AI standards.
Scaling Back Regulations: The plan directs federal agencies to identify and repeal rules that, in the administration’s view, “unnecessarily hinder AI development or deployment.” It explicitly seeks to remove “bureaucratic red tape”—including fast-tracking permits for AI infrastructure projects and loosening environmental regulations for datacenters.
Blocking “Ideological Bias”: The federal government will prioritize procurement and use of large language models and AI systems it determines to be “objective and free from top-down ideological bias.” This specifically bars models said to embrace political or social viewpoints such as “Critical Race Theory,” with the aim of maintaining what the administration calls “truth, fairness, and strict impartiality” in government AI use.
Limiting State-Level AI Laws: The plan threatens to restrict federal funding from states that enact AI regulations the administration considers overly burdensome, pushing for a single federal standard instead of a patchwork of state rules.
Rollback of Previous Guardrails: Upon re-entering office, Trump rescinded many measures from the previous administration designed to establish AI safety standards, shifting the focus to rapid growth and deregulation.
Export and Infrastructure Focus: The plan encourages speeding up the international export of U.S.-developed AI, particularly to allies, and aggressively expanding the domestic AI infrastructure footprint, notably through more data centers.
Countering China: A core motivation is explicit competition with China, aiming to prevent Chinese influence over the international governance and standards of AI.
The plan has drawn both praise—from those favoring minimal constraints on tech innovation—and criticism, viewed by opponents as favoring industry interests and engaging in ideological posturing by attempting to dictate what counts as political “bias” in AI. It remains to be seen how these broad deregulatory measures and the campaign against “bias” will impact both domestic AI safety and international perceptions of American technology.
