From the race to industrialize to the arms race, from the nuclear race to the space race, in every century since its independence from Great Britain, the U.S. has competed as a major player on the world stage.

Now, in this 21st century information and digital era, the U.S. is attempting to position itself as the primary contender in the “artificial intelligence race.”

President Donald Trump and his administration have positioned A.I. and data center expansion as part of a national “America beats China” strategy tied to A.I. dominance. The federal government is rapidly accelerating A.I. and data center deployment while straddling the line between oversight and deregulation. 

But who really benefits from accelerated development, who suffers the harms and disadvantages, and what would true regulation look like?

The White House’s A.I. push

The White House unveiled “America’s AI Action Plan” on July 23, 2025, which served as a catalyst for the government’s rapid A.I. expansion. In the plan, the U.S. government laid out more than 90 federal policy actions under three pillars: accelerating innovation, building America A.I. infrastructure and leading internationally.

Key actions included expediting permits for data centers and semiconductor facilities, removing federal rules seen as slowing A.I. and requiring federal A.I. vendors to avoid “ideological bias.” 

The president issued an executive order that same day on “Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure.” The order directed the federal government to speed up the development of data centers and related infrastructure by easing federal regulatory burdens and using federal land and resources. 

In a separate executive order also dated July 23, 2025, the government communicated plans to create an “American AI Exports program” that would make other countries dependent on U.S.-built A.I. systems and standards. 

From July 2025 to April 2026, the government has proceeded to carry out its plans. Here is a brief timeline summarizing White House press releases and presidential actions.

•        September 2025: White House officials met with major tech executives from OpenAI, Google/Alphabet, Oracle, Apple, Microsoft, AMD and Meta.

•        December 2025: President Trump issued an executive order that targeted state A.I. laws, created an A.I. Litigation Task Force to challenge and evaluate state laws and threatened to restrict state funding due to laws the administration claimed would hinder innovation. 

•        March 2026: The Trump administration issued a formal response to public concern on rising electricity bills due to data centers. Major tech companies like Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, Oracle and xAI signed a Ratepayer Protection Pledge agreeing to “build, bring or buy” the power needed for their data centers, cover grid upgrade costs, negotiate separate utility rates, support local jobs and contribute backup power during shortages.

•        April 2026: The White House announced the release of the “2026 Economic Report of the President.” The report included a chapter on “The Revolution of Artificial Intelligence,” which echoed the administration’s previous stances on A.I., characterizing regulation as slowing A.I. growth.

In meetings between late April and early May, White House officials reportedly told executives from Anthropic, Google and OpenAI about plans to create an A.I. working group and install a formal government review process for new A.I. models, The New York Times reported from U.S. officials and people briefed on the deliberations.

The Times reported that the working group would bring together tech executives and government officials to examine potential oversight procedures. The proposal would also give government officials early access to powerful A.I. models for national and cyber security reasons. 

Shortly after the meetings, a senior White House official clarified that the White House is looking for “partnership” with companies rather than pursuing “government regulation,” according to a May 7 article by Politico. 

The oversight contradiction

The White House press releases and presidential actions show an administration trying to make A.I. expansion into a national project by deregulating it, exporting it to other countries, protecting it from state laws and reassuring the public that big tech will pay its own way. Simultaneously, the government is looking into A.I. oversight.

The question becomes, how would A.I. oversight and A.I. deregulation exist at the same time, and who will be in the room shaping key policy decisions? 

The administration’s effort to override state A.I. laws raise questions about whether meaningful independent oversight can exist alongside rapid deregulation. Cities and states have been leading the charge on data center moratoriums, in the absence of comprehensive federal legislation. In addition, citizen concerns on A.I. and data centers are growing. 

Hyperscale data centers equipped to house A.I. require massive warehouses, enormous electricity and water consumption and transmission infrastructure.

These data centers occupy at least 10,000 square feet and require more than 100 megawatts of power, due to operation and cooling needs, according to a congressional report on data centers and their energy consumption, published in January. 

Communities across the country are fighting local data center growth, as families fear utility hikes and neighborhoods deal with threats to the environment, water usage and noise pollution. Those in the workforce worry about A.I. displacement. 

Black communities are especially disproportionately harmed by massive A.I. data centers and the resulting environmental racism and negative health outcomes that come with them, as reported in previous Final Call articles. One well-known example is xAI’s Colossus project built in a majority-Black neighborhood in Memphis, Tennessee.

In previous Final Call interviews, activists voiced concerns over xAI’s usage of methane gas turbines, as methane is a toxic air pollutant that can cause or worsen breathing problems, heart disease, cancer and stroke, according to the Environmental Defense Fund. 

So far, the meetings and advisory discussions held at the White House have been attended by executives and representatives from major A.I., cloud, semiconductor and infrastructure firms, the same companies positioned to profit the most from A.I. and data center expansion. Investors, industry lobbyists and administration officials have also been present. 

Groups that appear to be absent from the conversations are labor groups; civil rights groups that have raised concerns about algorithmic bias, increased surveillance and discrimination; environmental justice advocates concerned about water usage, energy demand, pollution, land use and utility prices; consumer watchdogs; and independent oversight groups.

Americans do not want more A.I. data centers. More than 70% of Americans oppose local construction of A.I. data centers, according to a new Gallup survey.

Right now, the U.S. does not have a comprehensive A.I. law. A.I. oversight comes from existing consumer protection laws, civil rights laws, privacy laws, other rules and regulations depending on the sector (i.e., medical, finance, transportation, workplace) and state legislation.

Some states passed laws related to bias audits, transparency mandates, child safety protections and other regulations, but these laws are now under attack by the federal government.

The government’s previous A.I. framework emphasized A.I. safety testing, transparency and agency oversight. President Trump replaced this framework with one centered on the idea of American A.I. dominance, deregulation and speed. 

Questions remain: 

•        If an A.I. working group were put into place, what authority would the working group actually have? 

•        What will be the transparency requirements of A.I. projects, if any? Will testing results be public? Will companies self-report risks? Who decides what counts as “safe?” Can the public challenge decisions?

•        And why are the big tech companies that are positioned to profit the most from weak regulation and massive expansion of A.I. infrastructure the same companies invited to closed-door meetings helping to shape policy around A.I.?

The administration argues that the U.S. cannot afford to lose the global A.I. race, but critics warn that prioritizing speed, infrastructure expansion and corporate partnership over independent oversight could negatively affect the people of America in the long run.

As the famous saying goes, “the race is not to the swift but to those who endure to the end.” The winners of the A.I. race may ultimately be crowned not by the faster speed but by the meaningful safeguards put in place.