What Trump’s victory could mean for AI regulation

A grueling election cycle has come to a close. Donald Trump will be the 47th president of the U.S., and, with Republicans in control of the Senate — and possibly the House — his allies are poised to bring sea change to the highest levels of government.

The effects will be acutely felt in the AI industry, which has largely rallied against federal policymaking. Trump has repeatedly said he plans to dismantle Biden’s AI policy framework on “day one” and has aligned himself with kingmakers who’ve sharply criticized all but the lightest touch regulations.

Biden’s approach

Biden’s AI policy came into force through executive order, the AI Executive Order, passed in October 2023. Congressional inaction on regulation precipitated the executive order, whose precepts are voluntary — not compulsory.

The AI EO addresses everything from advancing AI in healthcare to developing guidance designed to mitigate risks of IP theft. But two of its more consequential provisions — which have raised the ire of some Republicans — pertain to AI’s security risks and real-world safety impacts.

One provision directs companies developing powerful AI models to report to the government how they’re training and securing these models, and to provide the results of tests designed to probe for model vulnerabilities. The other provision directs the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to author guidance that helps companies identify — and correct for — flaws in models, including biases.

The AI EO accomplished much. In the last year, the Commerce Department established the U.S. AI Safety Institute (AISI), a body to study risks in AI systems, inclusive of systems with defense applications. It also released new software to help improve the trustworthiness of AI, and tested major new AI models through agreements with OpenAI and Anthropic.

Critics allied with Trump argue that the EO’s reporting requirements are onerous and effectively force companies to disclose their trade secrets. During a House hearing in March, Representative Nancy Mace (R-SC) said they “could scare away would-be innovators and impede more ChatGPT-type breakthroughs.”

Because the requirements lean on an interpretation of the Defense Production Act, a 1950s-era law to support national defense, they’ve also been labeled by some Republicans in Congress as an example of executive overreach.

At a Senate hearing in July, Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, expressed concerns that “preemptive overregulation attempts” would “entrench the tech incumbents that we already have.” Vance has also been supportive of antitrust, including efforts by FTC chair Lina Khan, who’s spearheading investigations of big tech companies’ acquihires of AI startups.

Several Republicans have equated NIST’s work on AI with censorship of conservative speech. They accuse the Biden Administration of attempting to steer AI development with liberal notions about disinformation and bias; Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) recently slammed NIST’s “woke AI ‘safety’ standards” as a “plan to control speech” based on “amorphous” social harms.

“When I’m re-elected,” Trump said at a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, last December, “I will cancel Biden’s artificial intelligence executive order and ban the use of AI to censor the speech of American citizens on day one.”

Replacing the AI EO

So what could replace Biden’s AI EO?

Little can be gleaned from the AI executive orders Trump signed during his last presidential term, which founded national AI research institutes and directed federal agencies to prioritize AI R&D. His EOs mandated that agencies “protect civil liberties, privacy, and American values” in applying AI, help workers gain AI-relevant skills, and promote the use of “trustworthy” technologies.

During his campaign, Trump promised policies that would “support AI development rooted in free speech and human flourishing” — but declined to go into detail.

Some Republicans have said that they want NIST to focus on AI’s physical safety risks, including its ability to help adversaries build bioweapons (which Biden’s EO also addresses). But they’ve also shied away from endorsing new restrictions on AI, which could jeopardize portions of NIST’s guidance.

Indeed, the fate of the AISI, which is housed within NIST, is murky. While it has a budget, director, and partnerships with AI research institutes worldwide, the AISI could be wound down with a simple repeal of Biden’s EO.

In an open letter in October, a coalition of companies, nonprofits, and universities called on Congress to enact legislation codifying the AISI before the end of the year.

Trump has acknowledged that AI is “very dangerous” and that it’ll require massive amounts of power to develop and run, suggesting a willingness to engage with the growing risks from AI.

This being the case, Sarah Kreps, a political scientist who focuses on U.S. defense policy, doesn’t expect major AI regulation to emerge from the White House in the next four years. “I don’t know that Trump’s views on AI regulation will rise to the level of antipathy that causes him to repeal the Biden AI EO,” she told TechCrunch.

Trade and state rulemaking

Dean Ball, a research fellow at George Mason University, agrees that Trump’s victory likely augurs a light-touch regulatory regime — one that’ll rely on the application of existing law rather than the creation of new laws. However, Ball predicts that this may embolden state governments, particularly in Democratic strongholds like California, to try to fill the void.

State-led efforts are well underway. In March, Tennessee passed a law protecting voice artists from AI cloning. This summer, Colorado adopted a tiered, risk-based approach to AI deployments. And in September, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed dozens of AI-related safety bills, a few of which require companies to publish details about their AI training.

State policymakers have introduced close to 700 pieces of AI legislation this year alone.

“How the federal government will respond to these challenges is unclear,” Ball said.

Hamid Ekbia, a professor at Syracuse University studying public affairs, believes that Trump’s protectionist policies could have AI regulatory implications. He expects the Trump administration to impose tighter export controls on China, for instance — including controls on the technologies necessary for developing AI.

The Biden administration already has in place a number of bans on the export of AI chips and models. However, some Chinese firms are reportedly using loopholes to access the tools through cloud services.

“The global regulation of AI will suffer as a consequence [of new controls], despite the circumstances that call for more global cooperation,” Ekbia said. “The political and geopolitical ramifications of this can be huge, enabling more authoritarian and oppressive uses of AI across the globe.”

Should Trump enact tariffs on the tech necessary to build AI, it could also squeeze the capital needed to fund AI R&D, says Matt Mittelsteadt, another research fellow at George Mason University. During his campaign, Trump proposed a 10% tariff on all U.S. imports and 60% on Chinese-made products.

“Perhaps the biggest impact will come from trade policies,” Mittelsteadt said. “Expect any potential tariffs to have a massive economic impact on the AI sector.”

Of course, it’s early. And while Trump for the most part avoided addressing AI on the campaign trail, much of his platform — like his plan to restrict H-1B visas and embrace oil and gas — could have downstream effects on the AI industry.

Sandra Wachter, a professor in data ethics at the Oxford Internet Institute, urged regulators, regardless of their political affiliations, not to lose sight of the dangers of AI for its opportunities.

“These risks exist regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum,” she said. “These harms do not believe in geography and do not care about party lines. I can only hope that AI governance will not be reduced to a partisan issue — it is an issue that affects all of us, everywhere. We all have to work together to find good global solutions.”