Making AI—and Making It Work for All

AI policy discussions often lend themselves to clichés. Democrats support AI regulation, Republicans oppose it. The US innovates, and Europe regulates. Laws governing technology hinder competitiveness. 

These stereotypes lack nuance, but their lingering effects can stymie productive discussion of real problems and real solutions. 

Findings from a GMF Technology AI policy study tour conducted in May challenged existing narratives about AI and US partisanship, the drivers of competitiveness, and Europe’s role in AI innovation. The tour, the third convening of the Transatlantic Tech Exchange (TTX), brought 10 members of the European Parliament to Washington, DC, northern Virginia, and Boston to strengthen transatlantic dialogue, uncover areas of potential collaboration, and deepen understanding of the political, societal, and technological developments shaping AI. The group spent the week meeting with federal and state policymakers, civil society representatives, innovators, entrepreneurs, and researchers on topics relevant to the AI value chain. There was an emphasis on AI safety and accountability, data centers, and AI innovation in the public interest. 

The tour had three thematic takeaways:

AI creates surprising fault lines and cross-party alliances in the United States.

AI policy debates do not map neatly to partisan lines and create uncommon bedfellows among populist, federalist, and geographic groupings in the US political system. This leaves Republicans and Democrats internally divided over AI regulation. The White House asserts that “AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation,” while a Steve Bannon-led group supports “mandatory testing, evaluation, vetting, and government approval of potentially dangerous frontier AI systems” before deployment. Two swing-state Democratic governors, Michigan’s Gretchen Wilmer and Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro, have embraced AI as key to competing with China and court local AI investments, while Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont) and Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) have called for data center moratoriums and partial public ownership of AI companies. AI has also driven an intraparty wedge between federal and state lawmakers. Many, though not all, of the former argue for federal preemption, and many of the latter seek state autonomy. Rising opposition to data centers is an increasingly significant local issue rather than a partisan one. According to recent polls, a majority of Democrats, Republicans, and independents oppose local data center construction, and over 100 localities and 14 states have introduced data center moratorium bills. This fragmentation indicates that US citizens remain unconvinced about AI’s importance and any impact on their future, complicating local and federal policymaking on AI safety and data center construction.

AI competitiveness concerns innovation more than regulation.

The argument that European tech regulations stifle EU innovation and competitiveness does not reflect the more complicated reality of developing innovation ecosystems spanning the AI value chain. Regulations and government policy complement and support innovation through common standards and fair competition, targeted research and development funding, national labs for frontier research, tax rules, patents, access to financing, and trade policy. This trend has continued even under a US administration that has prioritized deregulation. The Department of Energy-led Genesis Mission aims to apply AI to breakthroughs in energy and emerging technologies via cross-sector coordination among industry, academia, and national laboratories, while commercial diplomacy has long been part of the mission of the State and Commerce departments. On the US state and local level, initiatives such as the Massachusetts AI Hub’sdirect funding for developing AI applications in areas such as life sciences, and state-university collaboration such as the Massachusetts Green High Performance Computing Center, aim to democratize access to compute. Projects such as Massachusetts’ Shield Initiative focus on defense innovation.

European startups indeed face barriers to scaling up across the continent, but this is due to multiple factors and transcend EU-level digital regulation. Europe’s incomplete single market means companies struggle with a regulatory and financial patchwork, and can be hindered by local-level regulations such as bankruptcy laws or lengthy bureaucratic processes toestablish a company. Most importantly, fractured EU capital markets and limited local venture capital hinder access to the resources needed for continental scaling, a problem that the Savings and Investment Union and the proposal for a “28th regime” are designed to address.

Europe has room to lead in innovation.

Europe has comparative advantages in sectors critical to the AI value chain. As the United States rolls back funding for climate and energy technology and innovation, Europe can fill in the gaps, especially as it seeks to build out AI infrastructure within the bounds of high energy prices and limited financial and natural resources. Europe has talent and resources, but it needs regional actors to lead the building of innovation hubs and ecosystems that connect industry, government, universities, entrepreneurs and their startups, and capital willing to invest in risky ventures. Europe can also leverage its higher levels of public faith in institutions to build an AI that promotes the common good. Surveys show pessimism and lack of trust among the US public on AI, with greater trust in the EU’s ability to regulate AI effectively. Europe can provide a new narrative around innovation, one that emphasizes AI’s utility for public goods and services and helps avoid, through public-private partnerships, market concentration and corporate overreach. Public input mechanisms, transparency, and safeguards can show European publics that AI development and deployment along the value chain can work in the public interest. 

Conclusion

This third TTX convening of US and EU lawmakers on multiple levels of government grapple with the overlapping challenges posed by AI, from mitigating environmental and societal risks to supporting innovation that spurs economic growth and benefits the public. As the EU takes steps to cultivate home-grown tech solutions through initiatives such as the Tech Sovereignty Package, lessons about unlikely alliances in tech policy, drivers of innovation, and Europe’s comparative advantages can help ensure that such efforts are fit for purpose.

The views expressed herein are those solely of the author(s). GMF as an institution does not take positions. 

About the TTX

The TTX is a signature initiative of GMF Technology, convened with support from Stiftung Mercator GmbH and the Project Liberty Institute. TTX's goal is to build trust and mutual understanding among European and US lawmakers at the federal and state levels; discover areas of possible cross-party policy alignment through dialogue; deepen mutual understanding of EU and US technology policy and innovation environments; and conduct policy analysis and offer recommendations to advance innovation and democratic values in technology policy.

Over the coming months, GMF Tech will continue to publish articles and a capstone report analyzing these topics and proposing recommendations for transatlantic policymakers working across the AI value chain.