"AI is a National Strategy": Trump's Move Transforms Silicon Valley and the Global Market

The atmosphere surrounding AI policy in the United States has become increasingly turbulent. The Trump administration has made it clear that it prioritizes growth over regulation and speed over caution by dismantling the AI safety guardrails established during the Biden era. In January 2025, it revoked the executive order from the previous Biden administration aimed at reducing AI risks to consumers, workers, and national security. Since then, it has introduced policies focused on promoting AI exports, infrastructure development, and accelerating domestic investment. Throughout 2025, the White House prominently displayed "American AI dominance," and by early 2026, it showcased the results with an AI action plan, export strategy, and strengthened international collaboration.

For those who support this trend, Trump is clear: to win with AI, do not bind companies. Do not delay development. Capture the global market. Considering the competition with China, excessive regulation is almost a luxury. Indeed, Vice President JD Vance cautioned Europe at the Paris AI Summit in February 2025, stating that excessive regulation could "kill" the AI industry, and declared that the U.S. would pursue growth-oriented policies. While Europe emphasizes safety and rights protection, the Trump administration follows the order of "win first, organize later."

However, this "accelerationism" simultaneously ignites the political and economic powder keg surrounding AI. The Trump administration has not only revoked the safety test reporting obligations from the Biden era but has also openly opposed state and foreign regulations that hinder AI proliferation. In July 2025, Reuters reported that the White House was moving to support the overseas expansion of U.S.-made AI while cracking down on "restrictive rules." By the end of the same year, there was even a proposal to leverage federal funding to suppress state AI regulations deemed to hinder technological hegemony. The focus then shifts from how to nurture AI to who sets the rules. Is it the federal government, the states, or the tech giants? The dynamics have been laid bare.

There is no doubt that this is a tailwind for the AI industry. According to White House documents from January 2026, the Trump administration has placed AI, nuclear energy, drones, and 6G at the core of national competitiveness, removing regulatory barriers and advancing commercialization through test beds and regulatory exemptions. Furthermore, the "America’s AI Action Plan" from July 2025 outlined a comprehensive approach to reduce red tape, invest in R&D, promote exports, and provide AI education for workers. In short, AI is not just an industrial policy. It is positioned at the center of a "total national effort" encompassing reindustrialization, energy policy, trade, diplomacy, and security.

However, there is anxiety in this approach. AI consumes enormous computational resources and electricity. As data center construction progresses, conflicts over local electricity rates, land use, water resources, environmental impact, and job quality are inevitable. In March 2026, the Financial Times reported that President Trump conveyed to major AI companies the need for "PR improvement" to address opposition to data center expansion. Companies reportedly pledged to bear the costs of electricity and infrastructure associated with AI businesses rather than passing them on to users. This, conversely, is evidence that AI promotion has already become a political issue. TIME also pointed out that populist backlash over AI will intensify, warning that the gap between tech industry promises and the reality of everyday life will lead to political strife.

This situation could also create a rift with Trump's support base. It is easy to say that AI will make America strong again. But in reality, concerns are growing about rising electricity costs, job losses, and whether their regions will be turned into power zones for giant corporations. The "national interest" of AI does not necessarily align with the "regional interest" of residents. The winners may be GPU manufacturers and cloud companies, but the burden falls on local communities. It is only natural for there to be backlash.

Additionally, the Trump administration's AI policy has a strong security aspect. A series of reports from Reuters and AP indicate that AI is no longer about competing for the convenience of generative AI but has entered the core of national influence, military use, export control, and industrial hegemony. In 2025, a review of AI chip export regulations was underway, along with a strategy to promote U.S.-made AI technology abroad. In 2026, it was reported that Anthropic clashed with the administration over military and surveillance applications, leading federal agencies to move to halt the use of the company's products. In other words, even "safety-focused companies" could find themselves at a disadvantage if they clash with the administration's policies. AI companies are being forced to choose whether to align with the administration or draw a line.

On social media, reactions to Trump's AI policy are sharply polarized. Supporters believe, "America cannot afford to slow down to win." For example, on X, Palantir welcomed the White House's AI action plan as a "bold roadmap," and policy analyst Will Rinehart positively introduced the direction of avoiding overly precautionary regulations. The prevailing sentiment among conservatives and industry advocates is that the EU's cautious approach cannot defeat China, and rules that hinder innovation harm national interests.

On the other hand, skeptics view this as "unregulated capitalism in AI." Responses gathered by Tech Policy Press criticized the Trump administration's AI action plan for being overly focused on innovation, lacking measures for actual harm, and opposing state-level regulatory responses. On Bluesky, New York State Senator Kristen Gonzalez criticized moves to halt state-level AI protection measures as a "direct threat to safety," while former U.S. government AI official Rumman Chowdhury posted that those who prioritize ethics should not support this trend. While supporters speak of "national competitiveness," skeptics question the "social costs." The gap is quite deep.

A symbolic reaction among social media responses was regarding the massive project "Stargate." Launched by Trump in January 2025, this large-scale AI infrastructure initiative was treated as a symbol of U.S. AI enhancement involving OpenAI, Oracle, SoftBank, and others. However, Elon Musk publicly criticized the financial aspect on X, stating, "There is no such money." Sam Altman countered this, advocating for the project's significance. This reveals that even within Trump's support base, there are conflicting interests over AI hegemony strategy. It is not as simple as rallying together just because the president waves the flag. The narrative of AI hegemony is always torn between corporate competition, personal conflicts, and the realities of fundraising.

So, what does the view suggested by the SMH article, "Trump is the wildcard that could blow up AI," mean? It likely means that Trump is not someone who will stop AI but rather someone who could accelerate it in an extreme way. However, this acceleration is not orderly development. It involves removing regulations, suppressing states, using diplomacy and trade to push U.S.-made AI, and mobilizing energy policy to advance infrastructure. As a result, while companies gain momentum, society finds it harder to see "what is being protected." The more AI is treated as a tool for economic growth and military superiority, the more democratic control, accountability, and community consensus are pushed to the back.

What is even more troublesome is that it could fracture the formation of international rules. If the U.S. distances itself from multilateral frameworks for "safe and inclusive AI" and attacks European regulations as "shackles," global AI governance will become increasingly fragmented. Chatham House analyzed that AI in the Trump era significantly lowers predictability, posing a major challenge for European policymakers. The rules for America to win and the rules for the world to use safely do not need to be the same. In fact, they are beginning to clash.

Ultimately, the future of AI is not determined by model performance alone. Which country controls the electricity? Which company secures the computational resources? Which politician dismantles regulations, and which society accepts it? Trump could be the political trigger that moves all of these at once. That is why supporters are enthusiastic, and critics are fearful. A leader who accelerates AI is not necessarily a leader who nurtures AI healthily. What is happening in the U.S. now is not the technological revolution itself but a bare-knuckle political struggle over who will lead the technological revolution.

Source URL

Sydney Morning Herald
https://www.smh.com.au/technology/trump-is-the-wildcard-that-could-blow-up-ai-20260309-p5o8n0.html

Reuters: On the Trump administration's revocation of Biden-era executive orders addressing AI risks
https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/trump-revokes-biden-executive-order-addressing-ai-risks-2025-01-21/

AP News: Reporting on the symbolic turning point of AI safety measure revocation
https://apnews.com/article/trump-ai-repeal-biden-executive-order-artificial-intelligence-18cb6e4ffd1ca87151d48c3a0e1ad7c1

Reuters: On the White House's plan to promote U.S.-made AI overseas and ease regulations
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/white-house-unveil-plan-push-us-ai-abroad-crack-down-restrictive-rules-document-2025-07-22/

Reuters: Reporting on the review of AI chip export regulations
https://www.reuters.com/business/trump-administration-will-rescind-biden-era-ai-chip-export-curbs-bloomberg-news-2025-05-07/

Reuters: Reporting on Vice President JD Vance's criticism of European AI regulations
https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/europe-looks-embrace-ai-paris-summits-2nd-day-while-global-consensus-unclear-2025-02-11/

Reuters: Major quotes from JD Vance's AI speech in Paris
https://www.reuters.com/technology/quotes-us-vice-president-jd-vances-ai-speech-paris-2025-02-11/

White House / OSTP PDF: Official document showing the Trump administration placing AI at the center of national strategy
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/WHOSTP-2025-Wins.pdf

White House PDF: Full text of America’s AI Action Plan
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Americas-AI-Action-Plan.pdf

Brookings: Commentary tracking regulatory changes in the second Trump administration
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/tracking-regulatory-changes-in-the-second-trump-administration/

Brookings: Analysis of the Trump administration's AI Action Plan
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-to-make-of-the-trump-administrations-ai-action-plan/

Chatham House: Analysis of how Trump-era AI policy lowers global predictability
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/02/trump-stargate-deepseek-new-more-unpredictable-era-ai

TIME: Analysis of populist backlash over data center construction and the burden on residents
https://time.com/7371825/trump-data-center-ai-backlash-ai-america-china/

Financial Times: On urging AI companies to respond to backlash against data center expansion
https://www.ft.com/content/8585a851-f7a3-4409-a852-b385d39157f9

Axios: On Elon Musk's criticism of the Stargate initiative on X
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/22/stargate-elon-musk-trump-altman-openai-project

Reuters: Reporting on the review of data center expansion plans related to Stargate
https://www.reuters.com/business/oracle-openai-end-plans-expand-texas-data-center-site-bloomberg-news-reports-2026-03-06/

Tech Policy Press: Compilation of critical reactions to the Trump administration's AI Action Plan
https://www.techpolicy.press/reactions-to-the-trump-administrations-ai-action-plan/

Public reaction on X (Palantir's welcoming post)
https://x.com/PalantirTech/status/1950920934438650252

Public reaction on X (Will Rinehart's favorable evaluation)
https://x.com/WillRinehart/status/1889295512655835268

Public reaction on Bluesky (Kristen Gonzalez's criticism)
https://bsky.app/profile/sengonzalezny.bsky.social

Public reaction on Bluesky (Rumman Chowdhury's criticism)
https://bsky.app/profile/ruchowdh.bsky.social