Jennifer Huddleston
The general public has become increasingly excited and concerned about advancements in artificial intelligence (AI). Many of us have been encountering and using AI in an array of products for some time without realizing it, such as search engines and chatbots.
However, the popularity and advancement of publicly available generative AI products like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Dall‑E have captured the attention of both the public and policymakers. The previous Congress saw both the House and Senate release suggestions for how policymakers should consider what—if any—legislation is needed. The GOP platform vowed to revoke the Biden administration’s executive order on AI, and many lawmakers in both red and blue states have already pre-filed bills related to this rapidly emerging technology.
What should policymakers consider, and what is likely to happen as this next phase of the AI policy debate emerges?
Focus AI Policy on Supporting the Benefits of the Technology, Not Just Eliminating the Harms
New technologies are often disruptive, and policymakers initially seek a legislative response that ensures safety first, even at the expense of increased access, innovation, and speech.
AI has seen a similar panic initially emerge with sci-fi movie-esque doomsday scenarios. Less attention is paid to how AI is impactful and provides myriad benefits, from giving stroke victims their voices back to predicting how wildfires might move. As of January 2025, 55 percent of chief operating officers in a survey conducted by PYMNTS indicated they were using AI to improve cybersecurity.
However, much of the policy debate around the world has focused on preventing the negatives. This has significant potential unintended consequences for the beneficial applications.
As mentioned, the GOP platform calls to revoke the Biden-era executive order on AI. This executive order represented a much more precautionary and regulatory approach to technology, as has typically been seen in Europe.
While the incoming Trump administration has not stated what could replace the AI executive order, it could lean on prior frameworks related to AI, including those from the previous Trump and Obama administrations, which focused on supporting positive development rather than establishing regulations based on general aspects of the technology. This approach aligns more with what has allowed the United States to flourish as a leader in technology and innovation by providing a light-touch approach to general-purpose technologies. Further, it seeks to respond to specific problems or applications when necessary, instead of utilizing a top-down approach.
Applying a light regulatory touch to AI will most likely let US innovators and consumers access the benefits of this exciting technology, instead of regulating the technology’s development via limitations on computing power or requirements to review before launching.
Existing laws on topics such as discrimination or fraud address many of the concerns around AI. As a result, rather than passing new laws or restrictions that may lead to unintended consequences and limit important developments in health care and other fields, policymakers should consider whether existing laws may already address their concerns.
Recognize AI Is a Globally Competitive Market
While many leading technology companies invest in artificial intelligence, the United States is not the only country developing the technology. And while companies in Europe and other free societies are potential competitors, the risk of what could happen if technologies are developed and advanced by societies without democratic values, such as China, should not be ignored. In this way, the United States must have a policy towards AI that encourages a variety of innovations and does not place regulations and restrictions on technological development that would make it difficult to compete in the global marketplace.
There are positive steps US policymakers could take to support further global competitiveness of American innovation in AI. This includes ensuring that policy does not prevent open-source development, a position Vice President-elect J.D. Vance supports. Further, lawmakers should ensure regulations are not constructed so that only the largest players can afford to comply or have the resources to navigate them, thus hurting startups in the process.
Additionally, regulators should avoid misguided claims of monopoly at this early stage of the market or positions that limit acquisitions, which could deter important investment or research and development and even provide an advantage for Chinese competitors like Huawei.
While AI’s national security risk is often cited as a cause for further regulation, a policy that supports American innovation can further the positive reach of democratic values in this technology and provide an option for allies around the world.
Neutralize the Emerging Risk of a State AI Patchwork
A more regulatory approach to AI policy and technology policy in general has taken hold in Europe. Unfortunately, many states in the US have also considered it. This approach risks creating a patchwork that could disrupt innovation. Last year, over 40 states considered AI-related legislation, ranging from studies of the technology’s potential impact to the significant regulatory regime seen in Colorado.
In some cases, states may be able to support innovation by removing their own regulatory barriers or creating certainty around how existing laws apply to bad actors who use AI to commit fraud or other abuse; however, general state regulatory frameworks for AI create multiple problems beyond the state’s borders. Even seemingly fewer regulatory approaches at a state level could create a problem without clear reciprocity by requiring companies to seek certification in each state before fully launching or even developing their product.
As a result, the general framework for AI policy will need to be decided at the federal level, as the internet did before it. General AI regulation at the state level would mean the most restrictive state law becomes de facto federal legislation and creates conflicts that prevent products from being available.
Conclusion
The light-touch approach to technology has allowed innovation and entrepreneurship to flourish in the US, and its uses support the spread of democratic values. As the new administration and Congress consider AI policy, they should look for opportunities to support the beneficial innovation it brings and respond to harm.
In the face of European and state-level regulation, however, a proactive statement of intended policy will likely be needed to overcome the problems that could arise and prevent American companies from strongly competing on a global stage.