President Donald Trump’s plan to promote America’s AI dominance involves discouraging “woke AI,” slashing state and federal regulations, and laying the groundwork to rapidly expand AI development and adoption. Trump’s proposal, released on July 23rd, is a sweeping endorsement of the technology, full of guidance that ranges from specific executive actions to directions for future research.

Some of the new plan’s provisions (like promoting open-source AI) have garnered praise from organizations that are often broadly critical of Trump, but the loudest acclaim has come from tech and business groups, whose members stand to gain from fewer restrictions on AI.  “The difference between the Trump administration and Biden’s is effectively night and day,” says Patrick Hedger, director of policy at tech industry group NetChoice. “The Biden administration did everything it could to command and control the fledgling but critical sector … The Trump AI Action Plan, by contrast, is focused on asking where the government can help the private sector, but otherwise, get out of the way.”

Others are far more ambivalent. Future of Life Institute, which led an Elon Musk-backed push for an AI pause in 2023, said it was heartened to see the Trump administration acknowledge serious risks, like bioweapons or cyberattacks, could be exacerbated by AI. “However, the White House must go much further to safeguard American families, workers, and lives,” says Anthony Aguirre, FLI’s  executive director. “By continuing to rely on voluntary safety commitments from frontier AI corporations, it leaves the United States at risk of serious accidents, massive job losses, extreme concentrations of power, and the loss of human control. We know from experience that Big Tech promises alone are simply not enough.”

For now, here are the ways that Trump aims to promote AI.

‘Consider a state’s AI regulatory climate when making funding decisions’

Congress failed to pass a moratorium on states enforcing their own AI laws as part of a recent legislative package. But a version of that plan was resurrected in this document. “AI is far too important to smother in bureaucracy at this early stage, whether at the state or Federal level,” the plan says. “The Federal government should not allow AI-related Federal funding to be directed toward states with burdensome AI regulations that waste these funds, but should also not interfere with states’ rights to pass prudent laws that are not unduly restrictive to innovation.” 

To do this, it suggests federal agencies that dole out “AI-related discretionary funding” should  “limit funding if the state’s AI regulatory regimes may hinder the effectiveness of that funding or award.” It also suggests the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) “evaluate whether state AI regulations interfere with the agency’s ability to carry out its obligations and authorities under the Communications Act of 1934.”

The Trump administration also wants the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to take a hard look at existing AI regulations and agreements to see what it can scale back. It recommends the agency reevaluate investigations launched during the Biden administration “to ensure that they do not advance theories of liability that unduly burden AI innovation,” and suggests it could throw out burdensome aspects of existing FTC agreements. Some AI-related actions taken during the Biden administration that the FTC might now reconsider include banning Rite Aid’s use of AI facial recognition that allegedly falsely identified shoplifters, and taking action against AI-related claims the agency previously found to be deceptive.

‘Our AI systems must be free from ideological bias’

Trump’s plan includes policies designed to help encode his preferred politics in the world of AI. He’s ordered a revision of the Biden-era National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) AI Risk Management Framework — a voluntary set of best practices for designing safe AI systems — removing “references to misinformation, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and climate change.” (The words “misinformation” and “climate change” don’t actually appear in the framework, though misinformation is discussed in a supplementary file.)

In addition to that, a new executive order bans federal agencies from procuring what Trump deems “woke AI” or large language models “that sacrifice truthfulness and accuracy to ideological agendas,” including things like racial equity.

This section of the plan “seems to be motivated by a desire to control what information is available through AI tools and may propose actions that would violate the First Amendment,” says Kit Walsh, director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EEF). “The plan seeks to require that ‘the government only contracts with’ developers who meet the administration’s ideological criteria. While the government can choose to purchase only services that meet such criteria, it cannot require that developers refrain from also providing non-government users other services conveying other ideas.”

‘Establishing a dynamic, ‘try-first’ culture for AI’

The administration describes the slow uptake of AI tools across the economy, including in sensitive areas like healthcare, as a “bottleneck to harnessing AI’s full potential.” The plan describes this cautious approach as one fueled by “distrust or lack of understanding of the technology, a complex regulatory landscape, and a lack of clear governance and risk mitigation standards.” To promote the use of AI, the White House encourages a “‘try-first’ culture for AI across American industry.”

This includes creating domain-specific standards for adopting AI systems and measuring productivity increases, as well as regularly monitoring how US adoption of AI compares to international competitors. The White House also wants to integrate AI tools throughout the government itself, including by detailing staff with AI expertise at various agencies to other departments in need of that talent, training government employees on AI tools, and giving agencies ample access to AI models. The plan also specifically calls out the need to “aggressively adopt AI within its Armed Forces,” including by introducing AI curricula at military colleges and using AI to automate some work. 

‘Retrain and help workers thrive’

All this AI adoption will profoundly change the demand for human labor, the plan says, likely eliminating or fundamentally changing some jobs. The plan acknowledges that the government will need to help workers prepare for this transition period by retraining people for more in-demand roles in the new economy and providing tax benefits for certain AI training courses. 

On top of preparing to transition workers from traditional jobs that might be upended by AI, the plan discusses the need to train workers for the additional roles that might be created by it. Among the jobs that might be needed for this new reality are “electricians, advanced HVAC technicians, and a host of other high-paying occupations,” the plan says.

‘Create a supportive environment for open models’

The administration says it wants to “create a supportive environment for open models,” or AI models that allow users to modify the code that underpins them. Open models have certain “pros,” like being more accessible to startups and independent developers.

Groups like EFF and the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), which were critical of many other aspects of the plan, applauded this part. EFF’s Walsh called it a “positive proposal” to promote “the development of open models and making it possible for a wider range of people to participate in shaping AI research and development. If implemented well, this could lead to a greater diversity of viewpoints and values reflected in AI technologies, compared to a world where only the largest companies and agencies are able to develop AI.”

That said, there are also serious “cons” to the approach that the AI Action Plan didn’t seem to get into. For instance, the nature of open models makes them easier to trick and misalign for purposes like creating misinformation on a large scale, or chemical or biological weapons. It’s easier to get past built-in safeguards with such models, and it’s important to think critically about the tradeoffs before taking steps to drive open-source and open-weight model adoption at scale. 

‘Expedite environmental permitting’

Trump signed an executive order on July 23rd meant to fast track permitting for data center projects. The EO directs the commerce secretary to “launch an initiative to provide financial support” that could include loans, grants, and tax incentives for data centers and related infrastructure projects. 

Following a similar move by former President Joe Biden, Trump’s plan directs agencies to identify federal lands suitable for the “large-scale development” of data centers and power generation. The EO tells the Department of Defense to identify suitable sites on military installations and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify polluted Superfund and Brownfield sites that could be reused for these projects. 

The Trump administration is hellbent on dismantling environmental regulations, and the EO now directs the EPA to modify rules under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Toxic Substances Control Act to expedite permitting for data center projects.

The EO and the AI plan, similar to a Biden-era proposal, direct agencies to create “categorical exclusions” for federally supported data center projects that would exclude them from detailed environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act. And they argue for using new AI tools to speed environmental assessments and applying the “Fast-41 process” to data center projects to streamline federal permitting.

The Trump administration is basically using the AI arms race as an excuse to slash environmental regulations for data centers, energy infrastructure, and computer chip factories. Last week, the administration exempted coal-fired power plants and facilities that make chemicals for semiconductor manufacturing from Biden-era air pollution regulations.

‘Navigating the complex energy landscape of the 21st century’

The plan admits that AI is a big factor “increasing pressures on the [power] grid.” Electricity demand is rising for the first time in more than a decade in the US, thanks in large part to data centers — a trend that could trigger blackouts and raise Americans’ electricity bills. Trump’s AI plan lists some much-needed fixes to stabilize the grid, including upgrading power lines and managing how much electricity consumers use when demand spikes.

But the administration is saying that the US needs to generate more electricity to power AI just as it’s stopping renewable energy growth, which is like trying to win a race in a vehicle with no front wheels. It wants to meet growing demand with fossil fuels and nuclear energy. “We will continue to reject radical climate dogma,” the plan says. It argues for keeping existing, mostly fossil-fueled power plants online for longer and limiting environmental reviews to get data centers and new power plants online faster. 

The lower cost of gas generation has been killing coal power plants for years, but now a shortage of gas turbines could stymie Trump’s plans. New nuclear technologies that tech companies are investing in for their data centers probably won’t be ready for commercial deployment until the 2030s at the earliest. Republicans, meanwhile, have passed legislation to hobble the solar and wind industries that have been the fastest-growing sources of new electricity in the US. 

‘Prioritize fundamental advancements in AI interpretability’

The Trump administration accurately notes that while developers and engineers know how today’s advanced AI models work in a big-picture way, they “often cannot explain why a model produced a specific output. This can make it hard to predict the behavior of any specific AI system.” It’s aiming to fix that, at least when it comes to some high-stakes use cases.

The plan states that the lack of AI explainability and predictability can lead to issues in defense, national security, and “other applications where lives are at stake,” and it aims to promote “fundamental breakthroughs on these research problems.” The plan’s recommended policy actions include launching a tech development program led by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to advance AI interpretability, control systems, and security. It also said the government should prioritize fundamental advancements in such areas in its upcoming National AI R&D Strategic Plan and, perhaps most specifically, that the DOD and other agencies should coordinate an AI hackathon to allow academics to test AI systems for transparency, effectiveness, and vulnerabilities.

It’s true that explainability and unpredictability are big issues with advanced AI. Elon Musk’s xAI, which recently scored a large-scale contract with the DOD, recently struggled to stop its Grok chatbot from spouting pro-Hitler takes — so what happens in a higher-stakes situation? But the government seems unwilling to slow down while this problem is addressed. The plan states that since “AI has the potential to transform both the warfighting and back-office operations of the DOD,” the US “must aggressively adopt AI within its Armed Forces if it is to maintain its global military preeminence.” 

The plan also discusses how to better evaluate AI models for performance and reliability, like publishing guidelines for federal agencies to conduct their own AI system evaluations for compliance and other reasons. That’s something most industry leaders and activists support greatly, but it’s clear what the Trump administration has in mind will lack a lot of the elements they have been pushing for. 

Evaluations likely will focus on efficiency and operations, according to the plan, and not instances of racism, sexism, bias, and downstream harms. 

‘Give the courts and law enforcement the tools they need’

Courtrooms and AI tools mix in strange ways, from lawyers using hallucinated legal citations to an AI-generated appearance of a deceased victim. The plan says that “AI-generated media” like fake evidence “may present novel challenges to the legal system,” and it briefly recommends the Department of Justice and other agencies issue guidance on how to evaluate and deal with deepfakes in federal evidence rules.

‘Improving the financial market for compute’

Finally, the plan recommends creating new ways for the research and academic community to access AI models and compute. The way the industry works right now, many companies, and even academic institutions, can’t access or pay for the amount of compute they need on their own, and they often have to partner with hyperscalers — providers of large-scale cloud computing infrastructure, like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft — to access it. 

The plan wants to fix that issue, saying that the US “has solved this problem before with other goods through financial markets, such as spot and forward markets for commodities.” It recommends collaborating with the private sector, as well as government departments and the National Science Foundation’s National AI Research Resource pilot to “accelerate the maturation of a healthy financial market for compute.” It didn’t offer any specifics or additional plans for that. 

Ensuring AI reflects “objective truth,” slashing onerous regulations, disseminating US AI tools around the world, and fast-tracking AI infrastructure: this is all part of President Donald Trump’s vision for AI policy.

The White House unveiled its “AI Action Plan” Wednesday ahead of a scheduled appearance by the president at an event in Washington, DC. The 28-page document lays out three pillars of US AI policy in the Trump era: accelerating AI innovation, building American AI infrastructure, and leading international diplomacy and security around AI. 

Trump is expected to sign a series of related executive orders this week to help implement the plan. He’s slated to appear at an event Wednesday evening hosted by the Hill and Valley Forum and the All-In Podcast, which is co-hosted by tech investor-turned-White House AI and crypto czar David Sacks. 

Large chunks of the plan echo bipartisan rhetoric about ensuring the US maintains a leading role in the AI race and integrates the tech into its economy. But other aspects reflect the Trump administration’s push to root out diversity efforts and climate initiatives, as well as a Republican-led attempt to ban states from regulating AI. 

The plan recommends deleting “references to misinformation, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and climate change” in federal risk management guidance and prohibiting the federal government from contracting with large language model (LLM) developers unless they “ensure that their systems are objective and free from top-down ideological bias” — a standard it hasn’t yet clearly defined. It says the US must “reject radical climate dogma and bureaucratic red tape” to win the AI race.

It also seeks to remove state and federal regulatory hurdles for AI development, including by denying states AI-related funding if their rules “hinder the effectiveness of that funding or award,” effectively resurrecting a failed congressional AI law moratorium. The plan also suggests cutting rules that slow building data centers and semiconductor manufacturing facilities, and expanding the power grid to support “energy-intensive industries of the future.”

The Trump administration wants to create a “‘try-first’ culture for AI across American industry,” to encourage greater uptake of AI tools. It encourages the government itself to adopt AI tools, including doing so “aggressively” within the Armed Forces. As AI alters workforce demands, it seeks to “rapidly retrain and help workers thrive in an AI-driven economy.”

The administration recently lifted restrictions on Nvidia from selling some of its advanced AI chips to companies in China. But the AI Action Plan suggests it’s still contemplating some restrictions on selling US technology to foreign adversaries, by recommending the government “address gaps in semiconductor manufacturing export controls.”

The plan also discusses fostering science and research around AI development, investing in biosecurity as AI is used to find new cures for diseases, and creating the necessary legal framework to combat deepfakes.

Implementing this plan and “Winning the AI race” will ensure the country’s security, competitiveness, and economic wellbeing, according to an intro by Sacks, the president’s science and technology advisor Michael Kratsios, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “The opportunity that stands before us is both inspiring and humbling,” they write. “And it is ours to seize, or to lose.”

Four months after President Donald Trump defied Supreme Court precedent to remove two Democratic commissioners from the Federal Trade Commission without cause, one of those commissioners is returning to work.

US District Court Judge Loren AliKhan called the attempted firing unlawful, finding that Rebecca Kelly Slaughter “remains a rightful member of the Federal Trade Commission” and that the president can only remove her for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” AliKhan ordered Republican FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson to provide Slaughter with “access to any government facilities, resources, and equipment necessary for her to perform her lawful duties as an FTC Commissioner during the remainder of her term,” which ends in September 2029. 

The other Democratic commissioner, Alvaro Bedoya, formally resigned in June to seek another form of income without breaching federal ethics rules. For that reason, the judge dismissed the claims he brought in the lawsuit without prejudice, which is why only Slaughter is returning to work.  

The Trump administration pledged to appeal the ruling, with White House deputy press secretary Kush Desai writing in a statement, “The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the President’s constitutional authority to fire and remove executive officers who exercise his authority.”

As she returns to the FTC today, Slaughter is still likely to be out-voted on many issues with a 3-1 Republican majority. But she can still use her post to bring transparency and an alternative perspective to the agency’s actions that might not have been available otherwise. Slaughter will have access to key information about investigations that the agency is conducting on antitrust and consumer protection issues, which often includes probes of how companies are handling consumer data or marketing services to the public. When the commission holds a vote on whether or not to bring an enforcement action against a company, Slaughter can shed light on key points of disagreement or an alternative path the agency might have taken based on the facts, even when she doesn’t get her way. 

Shortly after his attempted firing in March, Bedoya told a group of reporters on Capitol Hill that his and Slaughter’s absence from the commission could mean that some actions the agency chose not to take could be lost to history. “If there’s an action brought up to the commission, and the commissioners say no, that never becomes public,” he said. “So not only is there a pall over the mission-driven consumer protection, anti-monopoly work of this extraordinary agency, there’s also complete opacity about some of the stuff that may be about to happen. The American public will not know what’s going wrong without minority commissioners on there.” He predicted that once they were reinstated, they’d be entitled to learn about anything that had gone on in their absence besides deliberations around their own lawsuit.

Posting a selfie in front of the FTC building today, Slaughter wrote that she was “excited to be heading into the office this am!” and that her top priority is “calling a vote on restoring the Click to Cancel Rule.” The rule was recently blocked from taking effect by an appeals court due to procedural errors in its rollout under former Chair Lina Khan. The push to restore the rule is an example of something that might not happen without a minority commissioner at the agency, since Ferguson and Republican Commissioner Melissa Holyoak had voted against the rule in the first place when they themselves were in the minority, taking issue with what they saw as a rushed process.

In the time that the FTC has been devoid of minority commissioners, Ferguson has taken steps to reduce the FTC’s independence from the executive branch. The agency’s consumer protection director told staff to stop calling the FTC “independent” in legal complaints. Ferguson has backed the White House’s assertion that Trump had the authority to fire his fellow commissioners. His muted response in the face of an executive order saying the White House could “review independent regulatory agencies’ obligations for consistency with the President’s policies and priorities” has been meaningful.

Slaughter has warned that Trump’s attempt to fire her and Bedoya are an early sign of how he might treat other independent agencies that are supposed to be insulated from political turmoil. (The Federal Communications Commission’s remaining Democrat, Anna Gomez, recently told The Verge she’s not sure why Trump hasn’t attempted to fire her yet as she’s toured the country criticizing the administration, and expressed a lack of confidence that he’d nominate another Democrat to the agency.)

“The for-cause removal protections that apply to my colleagues and me at the FTC also protect other independent economic regulators like the SEC, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve,” Slaughter said in a statement after the court ruling vindicating her.  “All these agencies were designed by Congress so that the economy wouldn’t experience whiplash every time the political winds change.”

Although Slaughter is celebrating her return to her job, the fight is unlikely to be over. Republicans — including Trump administration officials — have advocated for a reevaluation the Supreme Court precedent known as Humphrey’s Executor that prevented Trump from firing Slaughter and Bedoya in the first place. They question the authority of independent agencies and believe that the president should have more control over their remits. Recent Supreme Court rulings suggest the justices might just be willing to give Trump that kind of power.