AI Under Trump Government: Innovation, Deregulation, and Global Impact

The global race for AI leadership is heating up, and the U.S., under a Trump administration, has declared its intentions loud and clear: America First. Policies are shifting, investments are surging, and debates about regulation are growing louder. But what does this mean for the development and application of artificial intelligence? More importantly, how could these changes shape businesses, society, and international relations?

At this year’s Mobile World Congress (MWC25 Barcelona), our CEO, Mark Somol, joined a panel alongside experts in technology, policy, and human rights to explore this provocative topic. The discussion peeled back the layers of what AI under Trump governance might look like, focusing on deregulation, security concerns, and geopolitical impacts. Here’s an in-depth look at the key takeaways and what the future may hold.

The panel included experts across policy and business, including:

• Anja Ingenrieth (Moderator) Partner and head of Tech, Media & Telecoms Germany at Brunswick Group, who advises companies on how to navigate the critical issues they face and engage with their critical stakeholders.
• Mallory Knodel, Executive Director and Founder of the Social Web Foundation, a nonprofit organization working to advance a safer, more equitable, and more connected world and to advance the Social Web.
• Dr. José Ignacio Torreblanca,a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), a pan-European think tank focused on European foreign and security policy, and Professor of Political Science at UNED.
• Mark Somol, Co-founder and CEO, Hyacinth AI. 

The Ambitious Push for AI Dominance

Imagine a United States where every government policy aligns toward one major goal — becoming the global leader in AI. Under the Trump administration, this ambition translates into significant investments, partnerships, and deregulations. For example, the announcement of The Stargate Project, a project that intends to spend $500 billion on AI infrastructure in the US; and Apple committed to spending $500 billion on AI advancements based in the U.S. This kind of bold investment reinforces America’s place as a global AI powerhouse and erects a capital wall that will be difficult for other countries to match.

During the panel, our CEO Mark Somol, highlighted that such initiatives primarily benefit big-tech organizations initially, especially as these moves are considered power and money focused. Companies like Apple, Google, and Amazon are poised to leverage these policies, funneling resources into scaling their dominance. However, there’s a silver lining for all businesses—more investment leads to more innovation & competition, leading to better access to affordable solutions for everyone. 

While these policies benefit US companies, how will they impact the global community? 

AI Safety: The Ethical Dilemma

On the flip side of this optimistic drive for dominance lies an ethical quandary. Under Biden’s administration, strict safeguards were introduced to ensure AI would be deployed responsibly, minimizing risks and biases—think harm reduction frameworks embedded into agencies’ decision-making processes. Trump’s rollback of these guardrails signals a shift in focus.

Mallory Knodel , of the Social Web Foundation, noted that Biden’s executive order was “grounded in compliance and harm reduction.” The removal of such frameworks raises an important question—can progress come at the cost of ethics? Without sufficient standards, scenarios of misuse and unchecked bias in AI systems could result. Imagine AI tools making flawed decisions in hiring, law enforcement, or lending that perpetuate existing inequalities.

Here lies the key challenge for the Trump administration. While deregulation fosters faster innovation, will the lack of safeguards compromise trust and accountability in AI? Effective policies must straddle the delicate balance between fostering progress and maintaining ethical responsibility.

Jose posed a thought-provoking question: “Who would you want to have your health app doing AI with? With US or Trump regulations or with European regulations?” This frames the regulatory debate not just as economic competition but as a fundamental choice about values in technology governance.

Innovation vs. Deregulation

When asked whether he agreed with JD Vance’s assertion that regulation stifles investment and innovation, Mark presented a balanced view:

“Regulation typically does kill innovation,” he acknowledged. To illustrate his point, he cited the airline industry deregulation in the U.S. during the 1970s and 1980s, which resulted in “more airlines, more routes flown, and cheaper flights” – tangible evidence of how deregulation can foster innovation.

However, Mark emphasized that safety remains essential: “This, again, coming from the businessperson on the panel here, I don’t want to operate with unsafe AI. In fact, my customers will not use unsafe AI.” He drew a parallel to how air traffic controllers remain federally governed despite airline deregulation, arguing that similar safety guardrails are necessary for AI to achieve “the kind of wide scale adoption that we all hope it gets.”

Opportunities Beyond Borders

The discussion then turned to broader geopolitical implications of different AI strategies, particularly the “America First” approach of the Trump administration, which aims to ensure the most powerful AI systems and models remain American-made and run on American-designed chips.

Mark expressed mixed feelings about this protectionist stance: “As an American, does it bother me that we want to protect our AI technologies? No, of course, but as a global citizen, it does bother me.” He warned that increasing protectionism could limit the global benefits of AI by restricting access to people who need these technologies most.

Drawing on historical examples, he highlighted how open technologies and global standards—like GSM and CDMA in mobile communications—have benefited everyone. Mark also pointed out a contradiction in JD Vance’s position: “While we will not regulate AI in the US, we’re going to regulate what technologies US companies can use.” He cautioned that this approach could ultimately stifle innovation and lead to technological stagnation within the United States.

The divergence between U.S., EU, and Chinese policies reflects larger issues in global cooperation. With the U.S. withdrawing from initiatives like the G7 and OECD plans for AI governance, the stage is set for a fragmented global AI landscape. This divergence was on full display at the AI Action Summit in Paris in early February. Mallory Knodel warned that a lack of cooperation threatens to undo years of progress in creating standards for transparency, accountability, and harm reduction.

“What we’re seeing now is the development of AI in isolated silos, driven by competitive edges rather than common good,” she said. “Without incentives for interoperability and collaboration, AI risks becoming a tool that amplifies harm rather than benefit.” 

Imagine a world where the U.S.-led AI innovation is inaccessible to global partners due to protectionist policy. This could fracture international collaboration in technology, slowing down collective advancements or, worse, leading nations to pursue AI independently in ways that may not align with global ethical standards.

DeepSeek’s Disruption: Rethinking Global AI Competition

The discussion shifted to the significant impact of DeepSeek, a Chinese AI model that surprised global markets with its efficiency and cost-effectiveness, challenging assumptions about AI development and geopolitical dynamics.

Mark highlighted DeepSeek’s disruptive entry into the global AI landscape: “DeepSeek shocked the world. It certainly shocked a lot of companies in the US.” Speaking as “the capitalist on the panel,” he emphasized that such competition drives improvement in the industry.

When asked about potential bans on Chinese AI systems, Mark offered a provocative perspective on existing chip export restrictions: “We’ve already seen the ban on chips, and where did that get us? Well, that got us DeepSeek, didn’t it?”

He argued that such restrictions may actually accelerate innovation: “Banning some of these technologies from places like China is going to, in a resource-constrained environment, force China and these Chinese companies to work that much harder to innovate, and they may actually out-innovate us.” This observation suggests that protectionist policies could backfire by creating “a trap set for the US.”

José viewed DeepSeek’s emergence as “a bit of embarrassment for Europe,” contradicting the assumption that AI development required “deep pockets” and revealing a missed opportunity for European innovation.

He contextualized the situation within broader geopolitical tensions, referencing how the US approach to AI, quantum computing, and chips has been described as building “a small garden with a high fence” to restrict Chinese access. This strategy involves pressuring allies to follow suit, as evidenced by restrictions on Dutch company ASML selling to China.

José emphasized Europe’s desire for “tech sovereignty,” which he defined as “freedom from being coerced… we want to take our own decisions and we don’t want to be sucked into a confrontation between the US and China.”

A Collaborative Path Forward

Despite the challenges of divergent regulatory approaches and geopolitical tensions, there remains tremendous potential for AI to become a unifying force for global progress. The emergence of innovations like DeepSeek demonstrates that breakthroughs can come from unexpected places, suggesting that a diverse, globally-connected AI ecosystem ultimately produces better outcomes than isolated development. By recognizing this fundamental truth, policymakers have an opportunity to reframe competition as a driver of collective advancement rather than a zero-sum game.

The democratization of AI technologies offers perhaps the greatest promise for bridging divides. As innovations become more accessible and affordable, small businesses, underserved communities, and developing nations gain opportunities to participate in and benefit from technological progress. 

Ultimately, the most transformative potential of AI lies not in national dominance but in collaborative solutions to humanity’s greatest challenges—from climate change and healthcare accessibility to education and sustainable development. The choice before us is not whether one nation or approach will “win” the AI race, but whether humanity as a whole will harness this transformative technology to create a more prosperous, equitable and sustainable future for all.