Former President Donald Trump has introduced a new artificial intelligence initiative that places a strong emphasis on limiting federal regulations and addressing what he describes as political bias within AI systems. As the use of artificial intelligence rapidly expands across various sectors—including healthcare, national security, and consumer technology—Trump’s approach signals a departure from broader bipartisan and international efforts to apply tighter oversight over the evolving technology.
Trump’s newest proposition, integral to his comprehensive 2025 electoral strategy, portrays AI as a dual-faceted entity: a catalyst for American innovation and a possible danger to free expression. At the core of his plan is the notion that governmental participation in AI development should be limited, emphasizing the need to cut down regulations that, according to him, could obstruct innovation or allow ideological domination by federal bodies or influential technology firms.
Aunque otros líderes políticos y organismos reguladores en todo el mundo están desarrollando marcos orientados a garantizar la seguridad, transparencia y uso ético de la inteligencia artificial (IA), Trump está presentando su estrategia como una medida correctiva frente a lo que considera una creciente interferencia política en el desarrollo y uso de estas tecnologías.
At the heart of Trump’s plan for AI is a broad initiative aimed at decreasing what he perceives as excessive bureaucracy. He suggests limiting federal agencies’ ability to utilize AI in manners that may sway public perspectives, political discussions, or policy enforcement towards partisan ends. He contends that AI technologies, notably those employed in fields such as content moderation and monitoring, can be exploited to stifle opinions, particularly those linked to conservative perspectives.
Trump’s plan indicates that any employment of AI by federal authorities needs examination to guarantee impartiality, and no system should be allowed to make decisions that could have political consequences without direct human monitoring. This viewpoint is consistent with his persistent criticisms of governmental bodies and major tech companies, which he has often alleged to lean towards left-wing beliefs.
His strategy also involves establishing a team to oversee the deployment of AI in government operations and recommend measures to avoid what he describes as “algorithmic censorship.” The plan suggests that systems employed for identifying false information, hate speech, or unsuitable material could potentially be misused against people or groups, and thus should be strictly controlled—not in their usage, but in maintaining impartiality.
Trump’s AI platform also zeroes in on perceived biases embedded within algorithms. He claims that many AI models, particularly those developed by major tech firms, have inherent political leanings shaped by the data they are trained on and the priorities of the organizations behind them.
Although experts within the AI sector recognize the dangers of bias present in expansive language models and recommendation algorithms, Trump’s perspective highlights the possibility that these biases might be exploited purposely instead of accidentally. He suggests strategies to examine and reveal these systems, advocating for openness concerning their training processes, the data they utilize, and the potential variations in outcomes influenced by political or ideological settings.
Her proposal does not outline particular technical methods for identifying or reducing bias; however, she suggests the creation of an autonomous entity to evaluate AI tools utilized in sectors such as law enforcement, immigration, and digital interaction. She emphasizes that the aim is to guarantee that these tools remain «unaffected by political influence.»
Beyond worries about fairness and oversight, Trump’s strategy aims to ensure that America leads in the AI competition. He expresses disapproval of current approaches that, in his opinion, impose “too much bureaucracy” on developers, while international competitors—especially China—progress in AI technologies with government backing.
In response to this situation, he suggests offering tax incentives and loosening regulations for businesses focusing on AI development in the United States. Additionally, he advocates for increased financial support for collaborations between the public sector and private companies. These strategies aim to strengthen innovation at home and lessen dependence on overseas technology networks.
On national security, Trump’s plan is less detailed, but he does acknowledge the dual-use nature of AI technologies. He advocates for tighter controls on the export of critical AI tools and intellectual property, particularly to nations deemed strategic competitors. However, he stops short of outlining how such restrictions would be implemented without stifling global research collaborations or trade.
Interestingly, Trump’s AI strategy hardly addresses data privacy, a subject that has become crucial in numerous other plans both inside and outside the U.S. Although he recognizes the need to safeguard Americans’ private data, the focus is mainly on controlling what he considers ideological manipulation, rather than on the wider effects of AI-driven surveillance or improper handling of data.
This absence has drawn criticism from privacy advocates, who argue that AI systems—particularly those used in advertising, law enforcement, and public services—can pose serious risks if deployed without adequate data protections in place. Trump’s critics say his plan prioritizes political grievances over holistic governance of a transformative technology.
Trump’s approach to AI policy is notably different from the new legislative efforts in Europe. The EU is working on the AI Act, which intends to sort systems by their risk levels and demands rigorous adherence for applications that have substantial effects. In the United States, there are collaborative efforts from both major political parties to create regulations that promote openness, restrict biased outcomes, and curb dangerous autonomous decision-making processes, especially in areas such as job hiring and the criminal justice system.
By advocating a hands-off approach, Trump is betting on a deregulatory strategy that appeals to developers, entrepreneurs, and those skeptical of government intervention. However, experts warn that without safeguards, AI systems could exacerbate inequalities, propagate misinformation, and undermine democratic institutions.
The timing of Trump’s AI proposal appears closely tied to his 2024 election campaign. His message—framed around freedom of speech, fairness in technology, and protection against ideological control—resonates with his political base. By positioning AI as a battleground for American values, Trump seeks to differentiate his platform from other candidates who support tighter oversight or more cautious adoption of emerging tech.
The suggestion further bolsters Trump’s wider narrative of battling what he characterizes as a deeply rooted political and tech establishment. In this situation, AI transforms into not only a technological matter but also a cultural and ideological concern.
The success of Trump’s AI proposal largely hinges on the results of the 2024 election and the composition of Congress. Even if some elements are approved, the plan will probably encounter resistance from civil liberties organizations, privacy defenders, and technology professionals who warn against a landscape where AI is unchecked.
As artificial intelligence advances and transforms various sectors, nations globally are striving to find the optimal approach to merge innovation with responsibility. Trump’s plan embodies a definite, albeit contentious, perspective—centered on reducing regulation, skepticism towards organizational supervision, and significant apprehension about assumed political interference via digital technologies.
What remains uncertain is whether such an approach can provide both the freedom and the safeguards needed to guide AI development in a direction that benefits society at large.
