In 2016, tariff man couldn’t care less about tech. Newly elected U.S. President Donald J. Trump knew that the people who created and ran America’s tech giants were richer and smarter than him. Moreover, they had different values. They embraced openness, accountability, and the rule of law in international affairs. Moreover, they generally advocated for increased immigration of skilled workers, open markets, and relatively unfettered cross-border data flows. Unsurprisingly, his first term was characterized by disputes with many tech giants, including Facebook and Amazon.
However, tech leaders and government officials had a common concern: China’s innovative tech firms. They saw Chinese companies’ growing prowess in data-driven technologies as a threat to America’s economic progress and national security. As Chinese companies (most visibly Tiktok) gained market share, the Trump Administration came to understand that protecting the competitiveness of data-driven sectors was imperative if America were to become “great again.” And in February 2019, Trump signed Executive Order (EO) 13859 on Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence. The executive order created the American AI Initiative to “focus the resources of the Federal government to develop AI in order to increase our Nation’s prosperity, enhance our national and economic security, and improve quality of life for the American people.” Moreover, his administration set the initial rules for U.S. government use and governance of AI. Finally, the Trump administration thought that the U.S. government could best counter China’s growing competitiveness in key technologies such as AI by limiting access to the essential components of the AI supply chain. Many of these policies were quietly lauded by America’s diverse tech sector.
U.S. President Joe Biden really brought this vision of limiting access to the AI supply chain to life by issuing the AI Bill of Rights, two executive Orders on AI, and working with other countries to reduce AI risks and govern AI collectively. He took many steps to secure American AI leadership, investing in chip factories, STEM education, and research. Yet simultaneously, his Administration challenged the market power and business practices of the tech giants. Such actions alienated many in the venture capital and tech sectors. Although many tech leaders were quiet and several other prominent CEOs actively supported VP Kamala Harris, a significant number of tech leaders and venture capitalists supported Trump in the 2024 election. Under Trump 2.0, I foresee deep divisions among the tech companies that are courting the new administration’s officials. Trump 2.0 might:
End efforts to advance trustworthy AI
Trustworthy AI refers to the design, development, acquisition, and use of AI in a manner that fosters public trust and confidence while protecting privacy, civil rights, civil liberties, and American values, consistent with applicable laws.
During his first term, Donald Trump signed an executive order that defined the building blocks of trustworthy AI as efforts to ensure the validity and reliability of AI models, their security and resilience, model accountability and transparency, model explainability and Interpretability, privacy, and fairness by developing strategies to mitigate bias. Many of these building blocks cannot be achieved without some form of AI or business regulation.
However, Elon Musk, Trump’s second biggest donor, and head tech bro, is determined to limit AI regulation. Moreover, the Republican platform promised to repeal Biden’s executive orders that attempted to further trustworthy AI at home and abroad. The party sees these EOs as undermining innovation. Leaders of other tech companies may disagree as the EOs have provided clarity on the use of AI and AI development and governance.
Maintain international efforts to ensure that AI is trustworthy, safe, and resilient
Earlier in his career, tech bro Musk expressed support for preventing many AI risks, including the establishment of the AI Safety Institute, located at the Department of Commerce. Musk’s main concern is existential risk, whereas the leaders of many other companies are concerned about more immediate risks such as discrimination or hallucinations.
However, the AI Safety Institute was established in 2023 by Biden’s executive order. It may not survive without Congress approving legislation to create such a body. My gut is most tech CEOs like the AI Safety approach because it is built on testing and standards, rather than mandates.
End efforts to challenge the business practices of data giants
Under Trump, companies may be given freer rein to merge and invest in smaller more innovative companies at home and abroad. Here the tech bros may be in consensus and grateful.
Expand efforts to limit the ability of adversaries to acquire U.S. data
Under Trump 2.0, restrictions on data flows are likely to increase. However, the leaders of the giant tech companies are divided as to the short and long-term implications of these supply chain restrictions. While the U.S. has so far limited these EOs to adversaries, this also means reduced access to data and less accurate, complete, and representative datasets. Moreover, they undermine America’s commitment to digital solidarity, which the U.S. Department of State defines as “a willingness to work together on shared goals, to stand together, to help partners build capacity, and to provide mutual support.” It seems unlikely that Trump 2.0 will maintain efforts to foster digital solidarity.
Update the language of America’s digital trade agreements and draft and sign new ones
The signatories of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) agreed to review and decide whether to extend the agreement another 16 years. The review will take place in 2026, and the Trump administration may view bolstering it as a useful demonstration that the U.S. is not always protectionist or isolationist.
USMCA included a digital trade chapter that is out of date and, if renegotiated, could be used as a model for future trade agreements with other partners. Should the Trump Administration decide to do so, it could engender significant support not only among the tech giants but also among the many American farmers and small and medium enterprises that benefit from cross-border data flows. The Biden administration’s unwillingness to negotiate was widely criticized by business, as well as Republican and Democratic members of Congress.
Rethink America’s commitment to open as well as proprietary foundation models
In 2023, USG agencies investigated the risks of open vs. closed models. Both the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Commerce found these risks to be manageable and also asserted that openness provided great benefits to society and companies.
However, firms such as OpenAI that rely on proprietary models may challenge these findings, presenting another possible divide within America’s tech sector.
Further divide the tech community on data and AI sovereignty
The USG has quarreled with countries and trade blocs such as India and the EU that insist that data must be sovereign and analyzed only on trusted domestic cloud platforms. Now, the U.S. is becoming more like these nations when it asserts sovereignty over data and restricts its flows. Some American companies are even marketing AI and data sovereignty to policymakers in many nations to capture market share. For example, executives at high-speed chipmaker NVIDIA, have encouraged governmental clients to adopt sovereign AI through its “AI nations” initiative. Microsoft and Amazon Web Services, which provide cloud services as well as AI foundation models, also benefit from domestic efforts to promote AI. Meanwhile, other companies see the danger (and protectionism) in such approaches. Taken in sum, these policies may lead to a clash among the tech bros.
These predictions may or may not come true—but one thing is for certain: Whatever the Trump administration does to nurture and govern the tech sectors, its actions will likely divide tech companies, Americans, and the world.
More must-read commentary published by Fortune:
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
This post was originally published on here
