America’s AI Action Plan: A Legal Perspective

In July 2025, the Trump Administration unveiled America’s AI Action Plan, a sweeping national strategy aimed at securing U.S. global dominance in artificial intelligence. The plan is ambitious and broad, outlining how the U.S. intends to accelerate AI innovation, build robust AI infrastructure and assert leadership in international AI diplomacy and security. While the plan highlights key priorities for the future, it also raises significant legal and ethical questions that deserve scrutiny, especially for legal professionals engaged in AI regulation and governance.

Accelerating AI Innovation: Removing Red Tape or Redefining Regulation?

The first pillar of the plan calls for the removal of regulatory barriers to speed up private sector innovation in AI. The administration has already rescinded previous executive orders that aimed to regulate AI safety and trustworthiness. Instead, it promotes the idea that excessive regulation stifles progress and only benefits incumbents. The plan supports open-source AI models and encourages the broad adoption of AI systems across industries, including healthcare and defense.

From a legal standpoint, this deregulatory enthusiasm is double-edged. While fostering innovation is crucial, removing oversight risks overlooking important consumer protections and ethical considerations. The plan explicitly directs agencies to eliminate references to misinformation, diversity equity and inclusion, and climate change in AI risk frameworks. This ideological reset raises concerns about whether AI systems will truly be objective or if critical social responsibilities will be neglected. Furthermore, without robust regulations, issues such as algorithmic bias, privacy violations and misinformation could proliferate unchecked, exposing companies and governments to legal liability and reputational harm.

Building Infrastructure: Speed over Safety?

The second pillar emphasizes an aggressive “Build, Baby, Build” approach to AI infrastructure, focusing on streamlining environmental permitting for data centers and semiconductor manufacturing facilities. It identifies the stagnation of U.S. energy capacity as a critical bottleneck and promises reforms to accelerate grid upgrades and semiconductor production. The plan insists on securing AI infrastructure from adversarial technologies while fostering a large workforce skilled in managing this infrastructure.

Legally, these infrastructure goals raise multiple red flags. Expedited permitting processes often come at the expense of environmental review and public input, risking damage to ecosystems and communities. The rollbacks in environmental regulations, particularly under the National Environmental Policy Act, could spark legal challenges from environmental groups and states concerned about procedural violations or inadequate impact assessments. The promise to keep AI infrastructure free from foreign adversary technology is vital for national security but introduces complex compliance and supply chain risks for companies. How these policies align with existing international trade laws and export controls remains to be seen.

Leading on International AI Diplomacy: Protectionism or Partnership?

The third pillar focuses on exporting American AI technology and countering Chinese influence in AI governance at global standard-setting bodies. The plan advocates for robust export controls on AI compute hardware and semiconductor manufacturing to prevent adversaries from accessing advanced technology. It also proposes diplomatic strategies to align allies on export controls and technology protection measures.

This hardline stance invites legal challenges related to international trade, intellectual property and national security law. Export controls that are too restrictive could hamper the competitiveness of U.S. AI companies abroad and complicate legal compliance in global markets. Moreover, the aggressive push to exclude certain countries may conflict with World Trade Organization commitments or provoke retaliatory measures. Legal practitioners must be prepared to navigate an increasingly complex intersection of trade restrictions, compliance obligations and geopolitical strategy embedded in AI technology governance.

Critical Observations and Legal Risks

While the Action Plan’s goals of innovation, worker empowerment and national security leadership sound laudable, the document largely skirts important legal considerations that are crucial for responsible AI governance. For example, the plan’s strong anti-regulation tone risks undermining established frameworks designed to protect civil rights, privacy and due process. The removal of references to misinformation and inclusion in federal AI management frameworks could be seen as regressive and legally vulnerable to challenges on grounds of discrimination or misinformation harm.

The plan also gives scant attention to how AI-related harms such as deepfakes, algorithmic bias and AI-driven misinformation will be addressed beyond token measures in the legal system. The heavy focus on rapid deployment and competitive advantage may inadvertently increase legal exposure for both private and public entities as they deploy AI without sufficient safeguards.

Finally, the strategy’s assertive trade and export control policies, while understandable amid geopolitical tensions, place businesses and regulators in a difficult legal position as they balance compliance with national interest. The potential for conflicts with international law and the risk of disrupting global AI collaboration may ultimately slow the very innovation the plan aims to accelerate.

Conclusion

America’s AI Action Plan charts a bold course toward dominance in artificial intelligence by cutting red tape, building infrastructure at scale and leveraging diplomatic influence. However, from a legal perspective, the plan raises serious questions about balancing innovation with responsible oversight, environmental stewardship and adherence to international legal norms.