Securing American leadership in AI has emerged as a key goal of President Donald Trump’s second term. Maintaining America’s lead in artificial intelligence, expanding the nation’s military, intelligence, and economic dominance, and promoting its favored “AI stack”—the entire collection of chips, software, data, and cloud infrastructure that enable sophisticated systems to function—are Washington’s explicit goals.
In order to accomplish this, the Trump Administration and its Silicon Valley friends support laws that prioritize innovation over regulation as well as the quick construction of the data centers, fiber networks, and high-capacity power supplies that AI needs. When Trump ripped back the Biden era’s AI safety rules and safeguards on his first day back in the White House, he started this push.
By speeding up AI innovation, reducing regulations, and adopting a “build, baby, build” strategy for AI infrastructure, the president’s July 2025 AI Action Plan offered a roadmap for attaining global AI domination. Additionally, Trump signed an executive order in December that aims to limit states’ authority to regulate AI. Among other things, the order threatens to withhold federal funding from states that have “the most onerous and excessive laws” that “threaten to stymie innovation.”
Trump’s laissez-faire policies are opposed by a sizable portion of the American populace, and failure to garner widespread public support would jeopardize America’s ambition to become the leader in artificial intelligence. Data center opposition from the general public is probably the canary in the coal mine. The nation is seeing an increase in neighborhood opposition to data center building, driven by worries that these facilities would increase the cost of water and electricity and cause pollution.
Politicians are taking notice, with increasing bipartisan calls for technology corporations to pay their “fair share” of electricity expenses, including from the president himself. If 2026 is the year of AI takeoff, many Americans’ anxieties about its effects on our economy, politics, and human relationships may coalesce into a powerful populist political force.
Until recently, AI policy debates were limited to wonks and technologists. That reality is shifting as Americans feel the first tremors of the impending AI earthquake: increasing electricity prices, job losses, and mind-blowing applications like Moltbook, a revolutionary social network where AI bots interact with and learn solely from one another.
In American politics, AI policy is becoming more and more important, especially when it comes to issues of employment and affordability. Last year’s state elections in Georgia, New Jersey, and Virginia demonstrated its significance. This change will probably become more pronounced in November with the midterm elections. We will have entered a new era of AI politics by the time voters cast their ballots in the 2028 presidential election, with AI likely to become a key topic in that contest.
Americans and the AI anxiety
Public opinion polling on AI remains extremely scarce, but what little there is presents a picture of worry. According to Gallup, six in ten Americans dislike AI, and nearly all believe that policies prioritizing AI safety and security are critical. According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, half of Americans are more concerned than excited about AI’s growing presence in daily life; 57% see the hazards to society as significant, while only a quarter perceive the advantages as high. According to YouGov, 77% believe that AI will eventually represent a threat to humanity.
The difference between the public living in the future and the AI professionals creating it is perhaps most illuminating: the experts are much more optimistic about AI’s capacity to improve everything from the environment to education to the economy.
Although many Americans acknowledged that AI strengthens American military and economic might, many were much more worried about the long-term effects on their communities and families. They also express concern out loud about how inadequate AI regulation is to safeguarding kids and stopping the unchecked spread of false information.
They expressed concern that AI would worsen economic inequality, endanger their job opportunities, and increase political division while also lowering educational standards and impairing Americans’ ability to execute basic cognitive functions. Hearing real-world grievances about how AI was affecting local communities: electricity costs were skyrocketing, and once-calm neighborhoods were being disturbed by the constant buzz of data centers.
Instead, data centers were perceived as a burden on local resources—businesses that receive large subsidies, raise community utility bills, and create few long-term jobs in exchange. Insiders in the tech sector expressed optimism about the necessity of quick AI advancement. There was an air of profound pessimism from almost everyone else.
Local and state politics are already changing as a result of similar sentiments. The most heated discussions at the moment focused on data center construction, which is especially contentious in swing states that are home to some of the biggest data center markets. This is partly why President Trump was interested in the topic. In Virginia, where data centers are mushrooming and average facilities use as much electricity as 100,000 people, electricity costs played a significant role in the state’s governor election last November. Similarly, in Georgia, Democrats won their first seats on the state utility regulatory commission since 2007. Additionally, local resistance has previously prevented a number of significant data center projects in Arizona.
These rumbles are just the beginning. As firms rapidly deploy AI and workforce disruptions spread across industries and geographies, job loss could become the new political lightning rod. And if technological progress outpaces society’s ability to adapt, the United States could soon face a full-fledged populist backlash against artificial intelligence. National security justifications for a zero-regulation environment that allows the United States to outperform China are unlikely to resonate with Americans who have seen their middle-class jobs disappear or who are struggling to afford rising electricity bills. The divide between the promises of the digital oligarchs and the reality of Main Street will spark heated political debate.
The new politics of AI
Unexpected alliances are already being formed by the new politics of AI, which do not fit neatly into the conventional left-right ideological spectrum. The controversy around data centers provides another sneak peek. Bernie Sanders, a socialist senator from Vermont, and Ron DeSantis, a conservative governor of Florida, have become the two main opponents of the development of AI data centers, despite the fact that Sanders’ suggested moratorium was not well received by other progressives. At the municipal level, community initiatives opposing new facilities have garnered support from both Democrats and Republicans. Additionally, Republican senators Josh Hawley, Katie Britt, and Marsha Blackburn are calling for stricter regulation of AI, which is a position that differs significantly from their president’s.
This political confusion is a reflection of a more fundamental fact: neither party has a firm grasp on AI policy. Democrats ought to prevail in this dispute given President Trump’s anti-regulation policies and glaring pall with Big Tech. They aren’t. Despite the fact that majorities in both parties support stricter AI regulations, neither party has demonstrated a distinct political edge.
In order to win, Democrats must create a new political language for AI policy. AI has never been used as an electoral issue by Americans, and the majority of politicians are still learning how to handle the controversy. Despite the fact that the AI boom is boosting stock markets and that innovation offers revolutionary productivity gains, Democrats must recognize the real challenges, losses, and worries that Americans bear. Voters can’t be allowed to forget how much of the Trump Administration’s AI agenda seems to be geared toward helping the tech giants that helped him win office and who still fund his political campaigns.
The policy problem is to develop an agenda that is responsible rather than reactionary. Public opinion appears to favor a balanced approach: one that stresses rules and consumer protection over rushing to compete with China, while not abandoning AI progress totally. Three planks might serve as the foundation for a new Democratic platform. The first is regulation, which includes everything from data center design to privacy protections, trust and safety requirements, and legal responsibility frameworks. The goal should be to ensure that AI is created properly and securely, and to hold firms accountable for negligent behavior, while still allowing for rapid innovation.
The second pillar is social policy, which includes new government programs to assist people affected by AI development, ranging from retraining for those affected by AI-related layoffs to price stabilization in electricity markets stressed by data centers. The third is national security policy, which expands America’s AI advantages, such as export limitations that limit China’s access to the most advanced AI chips. Such measures would give Washington time to adopt cautious policies and handle AI-related disruptions without handing over leadership to Beijing.
Across all three planks, Democrats should reject the Trump administration’s deference to the private sector in favor of a more sustainable balance between commercial interests (often accompanied by campaign contributions), concerns about economic equity, and the larger national interest.
The AI race is unquestionably the most important strategic competition of our time. However, geopolitical will not replace retail politics. If politicians, industry executives, and national security experts do not respond promptly to this fact, a populist backlash might jeopardize America’s AI goals.
