Just before the mid-term elections, OpenAI hired Jessica Schumer, the daughter of Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer. The company also stated that it will begin referring to its data centers as “computing power parks” ( compute campuses ).
Over the past two years, many of the most well-known companies in Silicon Valley have established closer ties with U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration. Several companies have attended events at the White House, some have reduced their efforts in diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, and other executives have donated millions of dollars to super PACs that supported Trump's campaign and the candidates of his allies. Government policies have also benefited the industry, including tax reductions, a suspension of certain federal investigations, and more relaxed regulatory oversight. Meanwhile, one company is facing lawsuits and billions of dollars in fines, while another is accused of its technology harming users.
Now, as the midterms have changed the power balance in Washington, these companies are working to rebuild their relationship with the Democratic Party, which has pledged to tighten regulations on AI. How far they can go may depend less on image polishing and more on where the real battles take place: in state legislatures, in communities that decide whether to allow data centers, and in markets that, as seen over the past week, are paying attention to the AI craze.
The director of federal governance and technology policy at the public interest organization Public Citizen, J.B, told me that the tech industry “has realized there are issues with its image.” The organization claims to be non-partisan. He referred to actions such as hiring Schumer and rebranding as “public relations whitewashing.” He expects more such moves and mentioned that OpenAI announced a partnership with the American Federation of Teachers last year, as well as the newly launched Claude Corps and Meta by America’s Workforce Academy. “I imagine there will be more investment in these types of private-public partnerships,” he said.
These measures did not appear overnight. Meta and other tech companies are reportedly already seeking ways to strengthen their ties with the Democratic Party, as the likelihood of the Democrats making more progress in the midterms grew greater at that time. Regarding the impact of the midterms on Meta, when TechCrunch contacted the company for comment, a spokesperson quoted Meta President Dina Powell McCormick's statement from this week on WSJ Tech. "You must cooperate with the government elected by the American people," McCormick said. "I see in all aspects that you must maintain bipartisan cooperation, and you also want to do so, because you hope that what you are trying to push forward will receive support."
Not everyone believes that these efforts will be effective. Alice Marwick, the research director of the technology policy non-profit organizations Data and Society, told me that she expects large tech companies to try to shift back towards the center of the spectrum, “if not to the left. But it’s a bit too late for that now,” she said. “Tech companies should ask themselves how their products can make people’s lives better, because it doesn’t seem to be the case at the moment.”
If the Democratic Party fulfills its promises to tighten regulations on AI and large tech companies, this industry may face a more severe environment. Orders to suspend data center construction are gaining support, and a wave of AI regulatory bills is also awaiting drafting. At the same event, Powell McCormick stated that Meta hopes to prove that communities that welcome their investments will see “huge benefits,” while those communities that do not want these investments “of course have the right to stop them.”
However, in the next two years, a political deadlock could also occur in Washington. Aryan Ranjan, the founder of a political campaign management software company Baraza, told me that most of the action is likely to take place at the state level, as states have already sued tech companies and enacted regulatory measures. Speaking about the federal level, he said: "An alliance composed of newer, more middle-class voters might push Democrats to focus the AI framework on issues such as electricity costs, data center location, and employment, rather than on abstract AI security concerns."
In December last year, the Trump administration signed an executive order to establish the AI Litigation Working Group, a federal agency aimed at challenging state-level AI laws. The government has consistently argued that American AI companies "must be able to innovate freely without being bound by cumbersome regulations." However, many states have still passed their own laws, including measures targeting chatbots and deep fakes.
How President Trump will respond remains to be seen, including whether he will sign more AI executive orders or veto those bills that may be seen as anti-AI. Clearly, voters hope for stronger safeguards in place for this technology.
An official from the White House stated in a declaration for TechCrunch: "The United States' leadership in the field of superintelligence is crucial to our national security, economic prosperity, and the quality of life for the American people. President Trump is committed to ensuring that the United States continues to lead the world in superintelligence while protecting American consumers. As the president said, he is willing to work with anyone to continue to bring victory to hardworking Americans."
Branch believes that Trump's political future is now tied to the AI industry. On Wednesday, the day after the mid-term elections, a wave of sales worth trillions of dollars caused panic among investors, and some of them are reportedly now re-evaluating what Anthropic calls the trillion-dollar IPO. “The AI bubble is likely to burst, and it will happen under Trump’s watch,” said Branch, predicting a possible market collapse. “Does he want to sink with the AI industry, or rise together with it?”
Currently, the regulations faced by companies can vary depending on the location. Ranjan says: "In the next two years, the AI regulations of a company will likely depend more on where it operates, rather than what Washington passes."
