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 proposal suggests that any use of AI by the federal government should undergo scrutiny to ensure neutrality and that no system is permitted to make decisions with potential political implications without direct human oversight. This perspective aligns with his long-standing criticisms of federal agencies and large tech firms, which he has frequently accused of favoring left-leaning ideologies.
His plan also includes the formation of a task force that would monitor the use of AI within the government and propose guardrails to prevent what he terms “algorithmic censorship.” The initiative implies that algorithms used for flagging misinformation, hate speech, or inappropriate content could be weaponized against individuals or groups, and therefore should be tightly regulated—not in their application, but in their neutrality.
Trump’s artificial intelligence platform also focuses on the supposed biases integrated into algorithms. He argues that numerous AI systems, especially those created by large technology companies, possess built-in political tendencies influenced by the data they are trained with and the objectives of the organizations that develop them.
While researchers in the AI community do acknowledge the risks of bias in large language models and recommendation systems, Trump’s approach emphasizes the potential for these biases to be used intentionally rather than inadvertently. He proposes mechanisms to audit and expose such systems, pushing for transparency around how they are trained, what data they rely on, and how outputs may differ based on political or ideological context.
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 AI agenda stands in sharp contrast to emerging legislation in Europe, where the EU AI Act aims to classify systems based on risk and enforce strict compliance for high-impact applications. In the U.S., bipartisan efforts are also underway to introduce laws that ensure transparency, limit discriminatory impacts, and prevent harmful autonomous decision-making, particularly in sectors like employment and criminal justice.
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 continues to evolve and reshape industries, governments around the world are grappling with how best to balance innovation with accountability. Trump’s proposal represents a clear, if controversial, vision—one rooted in deregulation, distrust of institutional oversight, and a deep concern over perceived political manipulation through digital systems.
What we still don’t know is if this method can offer the liberty alongside the protections necessary to steer AI progress towards a route that rewards society as a whole.
