Trump’s new AI executive order is being framed as “national coordination,” but the real impact is political. It pulls power away from states and toward a single federal approach, right where corporate lobbying is strongest. The deeper issue is not “AI policy.” It’s who owns AI, who writes the rules, and who eats the risk when things go wrong.
The executive order is a power move, not a tech move
When people hear “single federal standard,” it sounds boring and reasonable. One country, one rulebook, less confusion.
But in the U.S., where you place the rulebook matters more than what’s written in it.
State governments are closer to the public. They are not perfect, but they are easier to pressure. You can organize locally, call lawmakers, sue under state law, and force specific changes. When regulation shifts upward, the fight moves to Washington, and Washington is where money talks the loudest.
That’s why Big AI has been pushing for federal preemption style policies. Not because they love safety. Because they love a predictable national environment that is easier to shape with lobbying and lawyers.
So this executive order should not be read as “Trump understands AI.” It should be read as “Trump understands who pays for influence.”
“Single standard” can mean two completely different things
Let’s be concrete. A single federal standard can be:
A single strong floor of protections for everyone, across all states.
A single weak floor that blocks states from doing more.
The first version helps the public. The second version helps the industry.
If states are told to back off, and the federal government does not replace state rules with tougher safeguards, you do not get safety. You get consolidation. You get a national market designed for the biggest players.
And that market is not neutral. It changes who can compete, who can sue, and who can demand accountability.
The real problem is not policy
It’s ownership
People keep arguing “regulate AI” like the main conflict is about rules. Rules matter, but ownership matters more.
In the U.S., the core AI stack sits in private hands, concentrated in a small group of corporations and capital networks. That means AI power is not just technological. It becomes political and economic power.
If you want a grounded way to explain “AI control,” it comes down to three chokepoints:
Data: Most training fuel comes from the public. But the pipelines are owned by platforms. Your posts, clicks, conversations, and behavior patterns become raw material.
Compute: Modern AI depends on expensive chips and cloud infrastructure. A small number of firms decide who gets the horsepower and at what price. Everyone else rents.
Distribution: Attention is controlled by search, feeds, app stores, and enterprise contracts. If you can’t reach users or customers, you don’t exist.
When a few actors control data, compute, and distribution, it stops looking like competition and starts looking like toll booths. That is the “who owns AI” question people keep dodging.
Lobbying is the missing link people pretend not to see
Some people hear “oligarch influence” and call it conspiracy talk. That is lazy.
Most of this is not secret. It is incentives.
Politicians need funding, friendly media, expert endorsements, think tanks, and a soft landing after office. Large corporations can provide all of that. Working people can provide votes, but votes are diluted by low participation, gerrymandering, and nonstop culture war noise.
So the system naturally tilts toward the interests of whoever can invest the most in shaping the system.
That’s why this executive order is such a clean example. AI companies want fewer obstacles across states. They push for federal action. Federal action arrives. The cycle repeats.
If someone wants to debate details of the order, fine. But the structure is obvious: private power uses public authority to protect private power.
What happens to ordinary people
When AI is concentrated, and policy is shaped around the needs of giants, most people get pushed into three roles.
1) Data feedstock
Your life becomes training material. You don’t get equity, dividends, or ownership. You get “free services” and a privacy policy nobody reads.
2) Managed labor
AI does not only replace jobs. It also tightens control over the jobs that remain. Algorithmic scheduling. Productivity scoring. Surveillance metrics. Automated discipline. More pressure, less bargaining power, and easier replacement.
3) Risk absorber
AI systems already influence hiring screens, credit decisions, insurance pricing, medical billing reviews, and content visibility. When a machine denies you something, the burden shifts onto you to prove the system was wrong. Good luck, especially if the law has been designed to limit local enforcement and narrow liability.
This is the pattern: profits are privatized, risks are socialized.
The only question that matters
People keep asking, “Will AI become dangerous?”
That’s not the first question. The first question is: who already controls it?
If AI is owned by a narrow elite, and the rules are written in the same rooms where lobbyists live, then the public is not a stakeholder. The public is an input source and a revenue source.
That is why this executive order matters. It’s not about the future. It’s about the present. It’s the power structure making itself more efficient.
