The 2024 US presidential election will redefine emerging technology. Artificial intelligence (AI) is evolving at a breakneck pace, and the next president will make critical decisions in crafting the regulatory framework that will govern one of Silicon Valley’s most transformative innovations. That regulation will have far-reaching implications for both businesses and individual users.
Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have differing visions on navigating the complex topography of emerging technology. If elected president, Vice President Harris has vowed to redouble the Biden administration’s efforts to govern transformative technologies like AI, protect citizens from their potential harms, and position the US as a global leader in responsible innovation.
Also: Anthropic warns of AI catastrophe if governments don’t regulate in 18 months
Former President Trump has a different approach. He has pledged to unshackle the American tech industry from overregulation, giving innovators free rein to create and compete. He has also suggested that the Biden administration’s attempts to mitigate tech’s downsides have only played into China’s hands. In his farewell address, Trump claimed Biden was “afraid” of China and boasted that “we slashed more job-killing regulations than any administration had ever done before.”
As technological change accelerates, the stakes of getting tech policy right have never been higher. Here’s a closer look at how the candidates diverge on some of the industry’s most pressing issues and what their presidency could mean for its future.
A new frontier in AI governance
AI has emerged as a defining issue in the race as the technology’s transformative potential — and destabilizing risks — come into more explicit focus.
Harris has communicated that ensuring AI systems are developed and deployed responsibly is a top priority. Building on the Biden administration’s initiatives, she has called for scaling up federal investments in AI research and development, with a focus on supporting projects that prioritize safety, transparency, and accountability.
Expanding the National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource is at the core of her AI agenda. This cloud-based platform gives academic and industry researchers access to powerful computing resources and high-quality government datasets. The Harris campaign argues that by democratizing the building blocks of AI innovation, the US can maintain its competitive edge while ensuring a wider range of perspectives shape the technology’s trajectory.
Also: Your Windows 10 PC can’t be upgraded? You have 5 options before support ends in 2025
“Harris played a major role in Biden’s approach and landmark Executive Order, and will presumably build on this work with an eye towards addressing AI’s potential to exacerbate privacy risks or wrongfully discriminate — particularly in the context of government use of AI,” said Chloe Autio, an AI regulation analyst.
Harris’s policies on emerging technologies are likely to have significant impacts on businesses and consumers alike. Based on her record as Vice President and her campaign platform, Harris is expected to pursue a balanced approach to regulating AI, emphasizing responsible innovation while addressing safety and ethical concerns. She will likely maintain or expand initiatives like the Biden-Harris CHIPS and Science Act, which directs funding toward domestic production of advanced technologies.
For consumers, Harris has advocated for more robust data privacy protections and may push for stricter regulations on how tech companies collect and use personal data.
As part of that effort, Harris supported the Biden administration’s framework for the AI Bill of Rights, a set of principles aimed at safeguarding civil liberties and ensuring AI systems are fair, transparent, and accountable. She also emphasized the importance of working with allied nations to establish global norms and standards around AI development and deployment, citing her role in shaping the Bletchley Declaration, a multinational pact acknowledging AI’s risks and committing to mitigate them through coordinated governance frameworks.
Also: Why data is the Achilles Heel of AI (and every other business plan)
“I think it is fair to say that Harris will continue to play a global role in the governance of tech,” said Ivana Bartoletti, chief privacy officer at the technology consulting firm Wipro.
The Trump campaign, by contrast, has pledged to fundamentally alter the Biden administration’s AI regulations, arguing that they disadvantage American companies in comparison vis-à-vis China.
“We will repeal Joe Biden’s dangerous Executive Order that hinders AI innovation and imposes radical left-wing ideas on the development of this technology,” Trump’s manifesto states. “In its place, Republicans support AI development rooted in free speech and human flourishing.”
“Trump sees it as an underlying problem of a ‘woke’ tech industry absorbed with censoring conservative speech and ideas,” Autio said. “Despite the fact that Biden’s AI EO doesn’t really address content moderation, Trump has announced that he will repeal it on day one should he get reelected.” This suggests a more laissez-faire approach with less government oversight.
Tech companies are recalibrating their strategies to navigate a potentially volatile regulatory landscape. Industry leaders are reaching out to Trump, seeking to mend fences and establish rapport. Companies like Apple, Google, and Amazon engage in preemptive diplomacy, with their CEOs initiating conversations with the former president. This outreach suggests a recognition of Trump’s influence and the need to position themselves favorably in case of his re-election.
Protecting consumers from AI bias
As AI systems become more sophisticated and ubiquitous, one of the most vexing challenges is ensuring they do not absorb and amplify societal biases in ways that harm marginalized groups.
Harris has signaled that combating algorithmic discrimination is a key priority. As a senator, she supported legislation to mitigate bias in facial recognition technology and other AI tools used by law enforcement agencies and pushed for more diversity in the tech workforce.
Also: We have an official open-source AI definition now, but the fight is far from over
“Her pursuit of injustice makes her well-positioned to address incidents in which technology is enabling or exacerbating unfair outcomes,” Ms. Autio noted.
Bartoletti said such measures are urgently needed as awareness of AI’s potential to entrench inequality reaches an inflection point.
“Concerns about bias and the perpetuation of inequality through software have entered mainstream discourse,” she said. “This is important as we have seen many cases of algorithmic decision-making automating existing inequalities into decisions about people´s access to services, work opportunities, or loans.”
“There is now a widespread recognition of these issues and a pressing need to adapt non-discrimination laws to address AI-induced harms,” Bartoletti added.
Whether a Trump administration would prioritize proactive measures to mitigate AI bias to the same degree remains to be seen. Trump has largely dismissed concerns about AI bias as overblown, arguing that efforts to mitigate it threaten to hamstring innovation at a critical juncture in the global tech race.
Also: Could AI make data science obsolete?
“For most Republicans, fear of slipping to China on AI innovation outweighs any concerns about harmful bias,” Autio said. “Trump won’t prioritize this issue and views bias as an issue primarily hindering conservative viewpoints.”
Navigating crypto and cybersecurity
The tumultuous events of the past year — from the implosion of cryptocurrency exchange FTX to a spate of cyberattacks linked to foreign governments — have added fuel to the simmering debate over how aggressively to police the tech industry.
Harris has staked out a middle ground on digital currencies, emphasizing the need to protect consumers and root out illicit activity while preserving space for financial innovation.
“I think this is an area where the candidates´ approach may diverge significantly,” Bartoletti said. “Harris is likely to place a strong emphasis on balancing innovation with the imperative of minimizing consumer harm, which is particularly crucial here.”
The Biden administration has taken initial steps to regulate the crypto industry, including through sanctions on crypto firms tied to ransomware attacks and a new framework for responsible development of digital assets. But Harris has suggested she would go further, potentially backing legislation to require crypto exchanges and other service providers to register with the government and comply with anti-money laundering rules.
Also: Technologist Bruce Schneier on security, society and why we need ‘public AI’ models
Trump, who has his own crypto venture and coin and once floated the concept of a “national Bitcoin reserve,” has advocated a far more laissez-faire approach to digital assets, arguing that heavy-handed regulations risk driving innovation offshore.
In a speech last year, he accused the Biden administration of waging a war on Bitcoin and vowed to aid the industry if elected president. While light on details, the proposal appeared to signal a hands-off stance toward the industry, with few safeguards for consumers or the broader financial system.
On cybersecurity, Harris has called for a more robust government response to the growing scourge of digital attacks that have crippled hospitals, schools, gas pipelines, and other critical infrastructure in recent years. Last year, the Biden-Harris White House published the National Cybersecurity Strategy.
She has voiced support for minimum security standards for internet-connected devices and holding software makers financially liable for failing to patch known vulnerabilities that lead to breaches — ideas that have gained traction among cybersecurity experts but faced resistance from industry groups.
Also: The best secure browsers for privacy in 2024: Expert tested
It remains to be seen whether a second Trump administration would take a more forceful approach to cybersecurity regulation, such as requiring companies in critical sectors to report breaches to the government or setting up a dedicated cyber resilience fund. However, some experts worry that his “America First” rhetoric and strained relationships with allies could hamper international cooperation on digital threats.
Rebuilding the semiconductor supply chain
The pandemic-induced shortages that brought assembly lines to a standstill and left consumers scrambling for electronics have thrust a long-overlooked sector into the spotlight: semiconductors.
The Biden-Harris CHIPS and Science Act represented a significant foray into industrial policy to re-shore semiconductor manufacturing and reassert US leadership in strategic technologies. Two years later, its success in catalyzing domestic investment is largely considered a success by economic standards. The election’s outcome could shape the initiative’s future trajectory.
In a rare display of bipartisanship, Congress passed the CHIPS Act last year, which provides over $50 billion in subsidies and tax credits to boost domestic chip manufacturing and reduce reliance on foreign suppliers. The Biden administration has touted the law as a signature achievement that will create jobs, strengthen national security, and help the US compete with China.
Also: I tested 7 AI content detectors – they’re getting dramatically better at identifying plagiarism
Both Harris and Trump have pledged to continue implementing the law if elected president. However, some of the projects it has funded have faced delays and cost overruns recently, raising questions about the program’s efficacy.
“If Intel continues to falter, it could reflect poorly on the Biden admin, which may cause Harris to distance herself from the program,” Autio said. “Trump would seize on this as evidence of a failed initiative but would not likely pursue a large investment package of his own.”
The Trump campaign has accused the Biden administration of using the CHIPS Act to reward political allies, pointing to the fact that some of the largest grants have gone to companies with ties to Democratic lawmakers. But supporters of the law argue that it is a critical step toward rebuilding a strategic industry that the US allowed to atrophy for decades.
“The CHIPS and Science Act allocated hundreds of billions of dollars to bolster US semiconductor manufacturing and prompted US allies, including key semiconductor suppliers Japan and the Netherlands, to impose restrictions on China’s access to advanced technologies,” Bartoletti explained. She sees more alignment than difference between Harris and Trump regarding protecting the US industry’s global position.
Also: 4 ways to turn generative AI experiments into real business value
Both candidates appear committed to securing critical supply chains and promoting “Made in America” innovation. However, Harris may focus more on distributing the tech boom’s economic gains to workers and consumers. She has emphasized creating an “opportunity economy” that benefits the middle class and has proposed initiatives like expanding apprenticeship programs to help workers find tech jobs without needing four-year degrees.
In contrast, Trump seems inclined to give tech companies freer rein, focusing on corporate tax cuts and deregulation to spur innovation. His approach emphasizes protecting American businesses and reducing government oversight to promote unfettered technological advancement and economic growth.
Experts say the US will need to do more than just throw money at the problem to maintain its edge in chip technology. That includes investing in research and development, expanding STEM education and immigration, and working with allies to coordinate export controls and other measures to prevent China from dominating the industry.
Big tech antitrust enforcement
As tech giants amass power rivaling that of nation-states, antitrust has re-emerged as a major point of contention. The Biden administration took an aggressive position, launching high-profile lawsuits and appointing reformers to key posts. “Biden’s administration took a firm stance on antitrust issues, and Harris will likely follow a similar path, given her emphasis on expanding opportunities for all Americans,” Bartoletti predicted. “The Biden administration has targeted large platforms, frequently addressing predatory practices in the name of consumer rights.”
Trump’s record and rhetoric paint a more ambiguous picture. “Trump has been very vocal about Silicon Valley giants in the past, arguing that these companies are a threat to US elections than Russia, due to what he calls their anti-conservative bias,” Bartoletti said.
Also: Why you should power off your phone at least once a week – according to the NSA
However, Bartoletti pointed out that the ultimate impact often comes from specific personnel choices. “It remains to be seen if he will appoint strong leaders to key positions, such as the FTC.”
Both candidates face the challenge of navigating an increasingly complex international regulatory landscape, particularly about American tech giants. The European Union has been at the vanguard of the big tech regulatory push, with new laws and enforcement actions targeting US tech firms.
The EU’s approach, which emphasizes competition and market dominance concerns, has resulted in significant fines and regulatory burdens for companies like Google, Apple, and Meta. This strategy by the EU impacts the operations of these companies abroad and puts pressure on US policymakers to respond, potentially reshaping the global tech regulatory environment. As Filippo Lancieri of ETH Zurich noted, the EU’s competition-focused approach to antitrust will likely continue dominating the European conversation, further complicating the international landscape for US tech firms and policymakers.
Also: The journey to fully autonomous AI agents and the venture capitalists funding them
Emerging technologies like AI are rapidly reshaping politics, business, and culture. The choice between Harris’s and Trump’s visions will influence lives far beyond Silicon Valley. With US technological leadership hanging in the balance, the 2024 election may determine whether America approaches today’s technology challenges through collaborative governance or competitive isolationism.
