The development of technological policy is an incredibly complex task which normally takes decades. By looking at the flea law, for example, the idea of strengthening the production capacity of the United States in semiconductors was proposed in the 1980s, took a political dynamic in 2020, was promulgated by Congress In 2022 and will take several decades to implement. During his first week, President Donald Trump did not conclude any technological policy. However, by issuing a wave of presidential actions that will affect technological policy, he showed that the administration was wishing to make significant changes soon.
As part of his efforts to transform the federal government, President Trump published an executive decree (OE) officially establishing the president Government Department of Effectiveness (DOGE). While DOGE was initially focused on reducing government programs and the reduction of staff, this EO marked a pivot, invoicing Doge to “modernize technology and federal software” to increase efficiency and productivity. In addition, by folding the American digital service in DOGE, the work guarantees that DOGE will have a group of full -time technical staff paid to execute this mission. Such a pivot is commendable, because there were questions about the question of whether Doge would have the expertise to decide what operations of the federal government should be reduced, and many federal agencies remain lagging behind in the adoption of innovative technologies . However, the question of whether Doge performs its new mission will depend on the key decisions that the administration has not announced. For example, although the OCE has established Doge as one of the offices of the White House, he did not specify the role of DOGE in the Interagencee process – the mechanism, which is normally motivated by the Council of Security , which generally determines whether the political initiatives of a president succeed or die on the vineyard.
The biggest titles were captured by the cancellation of President Trump of the Biden EO EO and his adoption of an EO on Eliminate obstacles to American leadership in artificial intelligence. These actions have marked a distance from the federal government to examine the details of the models of AI societies, with one possible exception: the federal government could still be involved if President Trump is serious about the OO’s reference Ensure that these systems “are free from ideological biases and social agendas. The statement on the rooting of ideological prejudices was not a unique comment – the new Trump Charter of the President of the Council of President’s advisers on science and technology contained a similar refrain.
Ensure that these new policies concerning the abolition of ideological biases do not retain the American technological sector will require a continuous dialogue between administration and technology industry. Many technological companies had already acted to comply with the administration policy before it was announced by modifying their policies on content moderation, such as Meta announcement By removing the factors (who would have been ideologically biased) in favor of community notes. However, these companies cannot neglect to shape the content of their algorithms, because the public wishes to use technological products that meet certain standards, such as a minimum level of civility. In doing so, technological companies will inadvertently fear penalties when they will quickly design and organize new products. In this regard, the administration will have to navigate inherent tensions between ensuring that the United States overcomes its rivals in key technologies and its commitment declared to suppress the ideological biases of technology.
President Trump also revoked digital assets of the Biden EO administration, and has published a separate EO on strengthening the position of the United States digital financial technology. As expected, this EO has marked a distance from digital asset policies motivated by concerns about fraud and money laundering, and to an active role in the federal government in the support of the economy of digital assets. This EO has prohibited agencies from supporting the digital currencies of the Central Bank (which the former president Biden had also argued) in the context of the risks that these currencies can lay. Beyond this decision, instead of adopting policies, the CA establishes the working group on the digital asset markets to make recommendations on the regulation of digital assets and “the evaluation of the creation of a stock of strategic national digital goods ”. This working group will be led by the AI of the White House and the Czar Crypto – which is currently David Sacks– and is made up of the main advisers of the White House and the secretaries of the cabinet. These actions will remove the digital assets from the normal interinstitutions process (which is motivated by the National Security Council) and will thus strengthen the hand of the bags – and, perhaps, from the digital asset industry – in the training policy. For the administration to adopt an approach which not only promotes American competitiveness in digital assets, but also takes targeted measures to protect themselves against the risks that these assets represent, the bags will have to work closely with government officials and external stakeholders who have examined these risks.
While the cancellation by President Trump of the AI and the EOS of the digital asset (among others) was notable, equal attention should also be paid to the EOS which was not one of its “initial terminations ” – In particular, the cybersecurity EOS of President Biden. Following Salt typhoonTHE US Hack Treasury DepartmentAnd other recent cyber-incidents, this inaction has been proof that the administration does not want opponents of the United States to have new opportunities to undermine the United States in cyberspace. At the same time, it remains to be seen which political cyber of the former administration that President Trump will keep and those he will drop. In this regard, cyber-politicals who help protect the sectors from critical infrastructure, which have bipartite support, can have the greatest power of stay. If, as is likely, this administration adopts such an approach, the key question will be what sectors of the American economy (for example, financial markets and telecommunications), it concludes sufficiently critical, so they should be submitted to such requirements.
Finally, President Trump delayed Application of the federal prohibition of Tiktok for 75 days. Assuming that this decision occurs to a legal challenge, it will be essential for the administration to find a solution that exploits any potential for the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on Tiktok operations and risks – such as espionage and The injection of malicious software – which are inherent in such an influence. While the reports suggest that solutions are taken into account that would allow the current Chinese owner to maintain a significant minority participation (or even an almost major participation) in the company, such an approach would leave RPC with the ability to influence a A company that could spy and harm around 170 million users in the United States.
The new administration has formalized several technology policy priorities, such as the modernization of information technologies of the federal government and strengthen the position of the United States in digital assets. He bought time before making important decisions on the protection of American networks and custody against an inappropriate foreign influence. In the coming weeks, President Trump will continue to balance his objectives to ensure that the United States is conducting in technology and that its networks are safe with other priorities, such as rapid modification of the scale and the scope of the government and by removing ideological biases in the technological sector.
Matt Pearl is director of the Strategic Technologies program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC