U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's policy preferences in many areas, such as trade and immigration, are generally clear. But there is much more uncertainty about his stance on various tech issues, including the regulation (or lack thereof) of AI, online content, data and monopolistic business practices. However, recent statements made by both Trump and other prominent Republican lawmakers, along with Trump's newfound close relationship with mogul Elon Musk, do offer some insight into how his next administration will approach these issues once it takes office on Jan. 20.
AI Regulation
AI regulation was not a major focus of Trump's 2024 presidential campaign. However, on the rare occasion he did broach the topic, Trump noted that existing AI regulations represented ''radical leftwing ideas'' and vowed to repeal President Joe Biden's 2023 executive order on AI on ''day one.'' To address emerging risks from AI, Biden's executive order relies largely on voluntary commitments from AI companies. In fact, the order has drawn criticism from advocates for greater oversight, who argue it still represents a pro-innovation approach — which is essentially what Trump and the Republican Party say they prefer — compared with the stricter AI regulations being imposed elsewhere, like the European Union. Nevertheless, the executive order, like many other parts of Biden's agenda, has been swept up in divisive culture wars and economic policy disagreements in which many other Republicans have echoed Trump's arguments.
However, as a new member of Trump's inner circle, Elon Musk may be able to steer the president-elect away from removing these comparatively light regulatory guardrails on future AI development and implementation. Indeed, Musk has been highly vocal in his concerns about AI systems' potential existential threat to humanity. After OpenAI's chatbot ChatGPT was released in late 2022, Musk was one of the over 1,000 tech leaders who in March 2023 signed an open letter warning that AI tools present ''profound risks to society and humanity.'' More recently, Musk was an adamant supporter of California's AI safety bill, which, had it not been ultimately vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom in late September, would have held tech companies liable for harm caused by their AI models and forced them to implement a kill switch if their systems went rogue. Moreover, Musk's xAI company stands to benefit from regulations being placed on rival companies. As the future co-head of the incoming Trump administration's new ''Department of Government Efficiency,'' Musk could easily advocate for maintaining AI regulations for other companies, especially because xAI and its free-speech championing Grok chatbot lag behind those of other AI ventures, like ChatGPT.
But while he supports certain regulations on future AI development and implementation (like protecting against existential threats to humanity), Musk opposes existing regulations on the type of content AI chatbots can generate. These guardrails are intended to prevent the output of harmful, abusive and inaccurate/misleading information, but Musk argues they infringe on free speech by allegedly promoting only liberal ideals and censoring conservative views. This view is shared by Trump and his allies, who have aired similar concerns about overzealous content moderation guardrails and their impact on free speech and alleged (anti-conservative) political biases. Once they take office in January, the Trump administration and the incoming Republican-led Congress — with Musk's backing — are thus likely to seek to remove such guardrails, which could enable chatbots, including newer versions that create images and videos, to spew a litany of harmful content that is worse than mere misinformation, including depictions of violence, abuse or hate speech. Moreover, the Trump administration's focus on eliminating content moderation in chatbots, in defense of free speech, will likely result in the deprioritization of other AI issues, such as biases in AI systems and protections against obscene or offensive content.
Separately, AI military projects will likely expand under Trump, with U.S. federal investment supporting AI defense and surveillance applications. Trump allies reportedly have drafted an AI executive order to launch ''Manhattan Projects'' to develop AI military technology while simultaneously upending ''unnecessary and burdensome regulations'' stemming from Biden's executive order. Under a section called ''Make America First in AI,'' the plan apparently proposes creating ''industry-led'' agencies to evaluate AI models and protect systems from foreign threats, which would likely benefit tech companies with existing military contracts. Meanwhile, the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 — a conservative blueprint for major governmental restructuring under a Republican administration — includes policies to enhance AI research and development in the United States, while restricting Chinese access to the emerging technology. Though Trump tried to distance himself from the controversial plan on the campaign trail, many of its ideas dovetail with his agenda; Trump has also tapped multiple people tied to Project 2025 for roles in his new administration.
While these initiatives emphasize research and military applications, Republicans remain widely critical of AI regulations. It is thus unlikely that any major AI regulation will emerge at the federal level during Trump's next four-year term; and on the off chance that they do, they are likely to be narrow policies that support massive amounts of energy needed to power AI systems, or provide legal protections against nonconsensual sexually explicit deepfakes, which is an issue with large bipartisan support.
Amid the ongoing absence of major federal action, U.S. states will likely be more inclined to adopt their own legislation on AI in the coming years, adding to the patchwork of data privacy policies currently in place in the United States. In 2024 alone, state policymakers introduced nearly 700 pieces of AI legislation, while several states also successfully implemented AI regulation in some form. Despite its failed AI safety bill, California will remain the key state to watch due to its importance to the U.S. tech industry, being the home of Silicon Valley, and its role as a regulatory leader at the state level, with other states often adopting legislation similar to California's.
Social Media and Content Moderation
Trump and his Republican allies in Congress will reignite the debate over potentially repealing Section 230 of the U.S. Communication Decency Act, which protects social media companies from being liable for content users post on their platforms, and also allows platforms to moderate content in ''good faith'' to remove objectionable material, such as harmful or offensive posts, without facing legal repercussions. Similar to AI chatbot content restrictions, Trump and other conservatives view this law as providing a shield to tech companies to censor conservative voices. Just before the end of his first term in 2020, Trump threatened to veto a widely popular and significant defense spending bill unless lawmakers in Congress repealed Section 230, which they did not do. But while he could try to push Congress to repeal the law again, Trump's own involvement with his Truth Social platform could deter him from taking such action this time around, as he now has a personal stake in avoiding liability for content users post on his platform.
However, Trump's pick to oversee the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may have different plans. Trump has named adamant big tech critic Brendan Carr to head the FCC, which regulates U.S. internet access and communications networks, such as television and radio. According to the FCC chapter of Project 2025 that Carr authored, the commission also has the power to interpret all provisions of the Communications Act, including Section 230. In direct contrast with Democrats, Carr believes Section 230 does far too much to combat online content, and has criticized big tech companies for shaping information, calling them the ''censorship cartel.''
It is thus not surprising that Carr has said combatting tech censorship will be one of his top priorities as the head of the FCC. He has already sent letters to multiple tech CEOs warning them of ''broad-ranging actions to restore Americans' First Amendment rights'' once Trump takes office, including ''a review of your companies' activities as well as third-party organizations and groups that have acted to curtail those rights.'' Additionally, Carr has said he will require tech companies to provide more transparency on changes to their algorithms, which control what content users see, and decisions to ban users.
Carr's FCC agenda focuses largely on working with Congress, which will need to approve any major change to Section 230. But it also outlines specific steps for the FCC to take, including issuing an order to interpret Section 230 to eliminate the immunities for the statute, which would allow tech companies to be sued (including Trump's Truth Social platform). Carr's view is that if companies remove content, they should lose protections and have to justify why they removed the content. Additionally, he wants Congress and the FCC to work together to encourage platforms to let users control their own content moderation, such as by choosing their own content filters and fact-checkers, or none at all. Some view Carr's aspirations as far exceeding the FCC's authority, which could lead big tech firms to file lawsuits or lobby lawmakers to oppose his agenda. But regardless of whether Carr is successful, he has made clear his intent to launch a crusade against content moderation and the ''censorship cartel.'' And this will, at the very least, cause massive headaches for tech firms, which could be forced to make policy changes to appease Carr's FCC over the next four years.
Data Privacy
Views on data privacy in the United States vary widely, even within the two main political parties. This is largely because the collection of personal data helps generate revenue for a wide range of businesses, including via AI training and practices like targeted ads and marketing. While Democrats tend to favor stronger consumer protections and regulatory oversight, Republicans are more split on the issue. Some Republicans don't want a federal data privacy bill because they echo the pro-innovation approach to help businesses operate more effectively, while others don't want one because they value limited government. Others advocate for data privacy regulation because they see access to personal information as a matter of individual rights or favor data privacy more specifically in certain areas of concern, such as for protecting minors or restricting data sharing with foreign governments.
On an individual level, Americans themselves also have diverse views on data privacy. Some people actively prefer that their data be used to help improve search results and generate more tailored and relevant personal ads while they scroll social media. And many young people who grew up in the digital age, like Gen Z and younger millennials, simply don't care, as they feel like everyone already has all their data and information.
So while there may be new regulation in certain areas, a federal data privacy law of significant scope and scale will remain elusive over the next four years. This means issues related to data privacy — much like AI issues — will likely continue to be shaped by state legislation and vary in differing jurisdictions, causing an array of compliance issues.
Antitrust
On Dec. 10, Trump announced that he had selected current Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner Andrew Ferguson to succeed current FTC chair Lina Khan, who has taken an aggressive approach to enforcing antitrust laws. During her tenure, Khan sought to prevent many mergers and acquisitions, and heavily challenged big tech. But while Ferguson has also heavily criticized big tech, his complaints center more around content moderation. In a post on X, he pledged to ''end Big Tech's vendetta against competition and free speech.'' As FTC chair, he has also promised to protect innovation, indicating he may continue some of Khan's aggressive enforcement of antitrust laws against big tech companies. However, Ferguson has also criticized FTC efforts to regulate AI technology, which he believes needs time to develop without regulation that could stifle innovation.
Additionally, Trump has announced plans to nominate antitrust lawyer Mark Meador as an FTC commissioner. Meador formerly served as an aide to Republican Senator Mike Lee, who headed congressional efforts to force a breakup of Google, which initially began in May 2022. If his nomination is confirmed, Meador's addition to the FTC would be another sign that antitrust, at least against big tech, will persist in the coming years.
Beyond the FTC, Trump has also named former tech and media policy adviser Gail Slater to serve as assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's antitrust division. Trump's comments on her appointment and about big tech's alleged role in stifling innovation and competition indicate that Slater will likely continue antitrust efforts, such as lawsuits against Google and Apple.
The Big Picture
Much of what is to come once Trump retakes power remains uncertain, with the media frenzy over his appointments, inner circle and legal proceedings often outshining specific policy details. But what is certain is that Trump and his Republican allies will adopt a new approach to AI that underscores U.S. competitiveness in the sector, with anti-China hawks in the Republican Party fueling efforts to prevent China from outpacing the United States in the AI arena, particularly for military applications.
Trump is also certain to focus intensely on combatting alleged censorship, both in AI systems and on social media platforms, meaning we can expect repeated calls to dismantle guardrails and promote chatbots that embrace less content moderation, like Musk's Grok. The result is likely to be messy, as such chatbots that lack guardrails like Grok risk promoting societal biases, hate speech and other offensive content, not unlike the kind of content that has surged on X since Musk took over the platform once known as Twitter. If social media companies also abandon content moderation efforts amid pressure from the White House, misinformation and disinformation will become commonplace, making it more likely that rumors will proliferate online, further muddying the information environment. Big tech will face intense challenges with regulating algorithms and providing relevant information for users, and social media may be an even more divided and hostile environment.
However, the battle against online content moderation will be a long, drawn-out process, and these kinds of changes could be years in the making. Regardless of the remaining uncertainties, Trump has made it clear that he is not holding back in advocating for the future he envisions, and that he will reward those who help him fulfill that vision, including by trying to significantly reshape U.S. tech policy.
