As Trump admin promotes AI plan, experts consider next steps for regulation
That dilemma was on display yesterday at Broadband Breakfast's latest weekly live virtual session, where a panel of experts debated competing visions for the future of AI.
The panel aired the same day the Trump administration announced its AI action plan, a series of policy recommendations that pushed scaling back regulations and eliminating what a statement called 'ideological bias' in AI. The plan outlines priorities including expanding data center infrastructure and promoting American AI technology in both government and private sectors.
The online discussion was moderated by Drew Clark, CEO of Breakfast Media and a longtime advocate for broadband expansion. As part of the organization's work to cover tech developments and broadband issues, Clark regularly hosts the weekly panels, which cover a wide range of topics related to internet policy.
The most recent discussion touched on issues such as federal versus state AI regulations and the potential impact of AI on jobs. Here are a few key takeaways from the discussion.
Best regulator remains unclear
Since the president's reconciliation bill dropped a proposed AI moratorium, which would have barred states from regulating AI for 10 years, experts differ on how to best approach AI regulation.
Sarah Oh Lam, senior fellow at the Technology Policy Institute, emphasized the need to strike a balance between protecting state interests and fostering AI innovation.
She noted that while many existing state laws are narrow and sector-specific, targeting areas like employment or judicial proceedings, recent legislation in states like Colorado and California takes a much broader approach.
'I think it's more art than science … coming to the right balance of being able to set a floor to protect innovation and advancement of frontier models, but also letting states have some local jurisdiction,' Lam said.
Chris Chambers Goodman, a professor at Pepperdine Caruso School of Law in Los Angeles, also acknowledged the downsides of a patchwork of state laws, warning that inconsistencies in definitions and regulatory scope could lead to compliance challenges and legal uncertainty.
At the same time, she argued that states should serve as laboratories for experimenting with new regulations. The scholar, whose work focuses on equal protection issues including algorithmic bias, is concerned about the shift from the Biden administration's focus on safety and privacy to the Trump administration's push for rapid AI acceleration.
'We're supposed to let the states try things out, come up with rules and regulations, and then after studying if these have been effective, Congress could decide on legislation that was actually based on best practices,' Goodman said.
How Trump's plan influences competition with China
The experts also debated the role of China in shaping US AI policy, offering sharply contrasting views on whether the United States should treat artificial intelligence as a geopolitical race. While some panelists called for urgency and limited regulation to stay ahead, others warned that framing AI development as a race with China could lead to risky, short-sighted decisions.
Adam Thierer, senior fellow at the free market-focused R Street Institute, argued that the US is locked in a 'stiff competition with China,' where leadership in AI has national security and ideological implications. He supported the Trump administration's new plan as a step toward fostering innovation and asserting American leadership in emerging technologies.
'It's not just about money and commerce,' Thierer said. 'It's also about values.'
Professor Yonathan Arbel of the University of Alabama School of Law took a more cautious view. While he agreed that the US should remain competitive, he pushed back against the 'race' narrative, questioning what winning actually means in a fast-evolving field where breakthroughs are quickly matched.
Arbel warned that racing ahead without proper safeguards could create harms that are difficult to undo, especially as AI systems become less transparent.
'I don't love the race metaphor, and I think it leads us down a very dark road where we have to win no matter what the price is,' Arbel said.
The people's role in responsible AI use
Goodman warned that AI use in government services can impact due process. She cited Covid-era welfare benefits systems that used algorithms to flag people as fraudulent based on frequent address changes, which were common due to the instability of the pandemic.
'The government owes its citizens and residents the right to due process,' she said. 'And when decisions are made by AI technologies that are infringing on those rights, then we really do have a big issue.' Lam also pointed out how humans still play a role in deploying and interpreting AI tools and how that can affect liability moving forward.
'Officials have choices between different models,' Lam said. 'So one pushback is: How is AI different from just software liability?'
Maria Eberhart is a 2025-2026 corps member for Report for America, an initiative of The Groundtruth Project that pairs emerging journalists with local newsrooms. This position is supported in part by the Robert W. Deutsch Foundation and the Abell Foundation. Learn more about supporting our free and independent journalism.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Technical.ly
4 hours ago
- Technical.ly
How wind and solar power helps keep America's farms alive
This is a guest post by Paul Mwebaze, an economist and project manager for the Sustainably Colocating Agricultural and Photovoltaic Electricity Systems (SCAPES) project at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. A version of this article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Drive through the plains of Iowa or Kansas and you'll see more than rows of corn, wheat and soybeans. You'll also see towering wind turbines spinning above fields and solar panels shining in the sun on barns and machine sheds. For many farmers, these are lifelines. Renewable energy provides steady income and affordable power, helping farms stay viable when crop prices fall or drought strikes. But some of that opportunity is now at risk as the Trump administration cuts federal support for renewable energy. Wind power brings steady income for farms Wind energy is a significant economic driver in rural America. In Iowa, for example, over 60% of the state's electricity came from wind energy in 2024, and the state is a hub for wind turbine manufacturing and maintenance jobs. For landowners, wind turbines often mean stable lease payments. Those historically were around US$3,000 to $5,000 per turbine per year, with some modern agreements $5,000 to $10,000 annually, secured through 20- to 30-year contracts. Nationwide, wind and solar projects contribute about $3.5 billion annually in combined lease payments and state and local taxes, more than a third of it going directly to rural landowners. These figures are backed by long-term contracts and multibillion‑dollar annual contributions, reinforcing the economic value that turbines bring to rural landowners and communities. Wind farms also contribute to local tax revenues that help fund rural schools, roads and emergency services. In counties across Texas, wind energy has become one of the most significant contributors to local property tax bases, stabilizing community budgets and helping pay for public services as agricultural commodity revenues fluctuate. In Oldham County in northwest Texas, for example, clean energy projects provided 22% of total county revenues in 2021. In several other rural counties, wind farms rank among the top 10 property taxpayers, contributing between 38% and 69% of tax revenue. The construction and operation of these projects also bring local jobs in trucking, concrete work and electrical services, boosting small-town businesses. The U.S. wind industry supports over 300,000 U.S. jobs across construction, manufacturing, operations and other roles connected to the industry, according to the American Clean Power Association. Renewable energy has been widely expected to continue to grow along with rising energy demand. In 2024, 93% of all new electricity generating capacity was wind, solar or energy storage, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration expected a similar percentage in 2025 as of June. Solar can cut power costs on the farm Solar energy is also boosting farm finances. Farmers use rooftop panels on barns and ground-mounted systems to power irrigation pumps, grain dryers and cold storage facilities, cutting their power costs. Some farmers have adopted agrivoltaics – dual-use systems that grow crops beneath solar panels. The panels provide shade, helping conserve water, while creating a second income path. These projects often cultivate pollinator-friendly plants, vegetables such as lettuce and spinach, or even grasses for grazing sheep, making the land productive for both food and energy. Federal grants and tax credits that were significantly expanded under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act helped make the upfront costs of solar installations affordable. However, the federal spending bill signed by President Donald Trump on July 4, 2025, rolled back many clean energy incentives. It phases down tax credits for distributed solar projects, particularly those under 1 megawatt, which include many farm‑scale installations, and sunsets them entirely by 2028. It also eliminates bonus credits that previously supported rural and low‑income areas. Without these credits, the upfront cost of solar power could be out of reach for some farmers, leaving them paying higher energy costs. At a 2024 conference organized by the Institute of Sustainability, Energy and Environment at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, where I work as a research economist, farmers emphasized the importance of tax credits and other economic incentives to offset the upfront cost of solar power systems. What's being lost The cuts to federal incentives include terminating the Production Tax Credit for new projects placed in service after Dec. 31, 2027, unless construction begins by July 4, 2026, and is completed within a tight time frame. The tax credit pays eligible wind and solar facilities approximately 2.75 cents per kilowatt-hour over 10 years, effectively lowering the cost of renewable energy generation. Ending that tax credit will likely increase the cost of production, potentially leading to higher electricity prices for consumers and fewer new projects coming online. The changes also accelerate the phase‑out of wind power tax credits. Projects must now begin construction by July 4, 2026, or be in service before the end of 2027 to qualify for any credit. Meanwhile, the Investment Tax Credit, which covers 30% of installed cost for solar and other renewables, faces similar limits: Projects must begin by July 4, 2026, and be completed by the end of 2027 to claim the credits. The bill also cuts bonuses for domestic components and installations in rural or low‑income locations. These adjustments could slow new renewable energy development, particularly smaller projects that directly benefit rural communities. While many existing clean energy agreements will remain in place for now, the rollback of federal incentives threatens future projects and could limit new income streams. It also affects manufacturing and jobs in those industries, which some rural communities rely on. Renewable energy also powers rural economies Renewable energy benefits entire communities, not just individual farmers. Wind and solar projects contribute millions of dollars in tax revenue. For example, in Howard County, Iowa, wind turbines generated $2.7 million in property tax revenue in 2024, accounting for 14.5% of the county's total budget and helping fund rural schools, public safety and road improvements. In some rural counties, clean energy is the largest new source of economic activity, helping stabilize local economies otherwise reliant on agriculture's unpredictable income streams. These projects also support rural manufacturing – such as Iowa turbine blade factories like TPI Composites, which just reopened its plant in Newton, and Siemens Gamesa in Fort Madison, which supply blades for GE and Siemens turbines. The tax benefits in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act helped boost those industries – and the jobs and local tax revenue they bring in. On the solar side, rural companies like APA Solar Racking, based in Ohio, manufacture steel racking systems for utility-scale solar farms across the example of how renewable energy has helped boost farm incomes and keep farmers on their land. As rural America faces economic uncertainty and climate pressures, I believe homegrown renewable energy offers a practical path forward. Wind and solar aren't just fueling the grid; they're helping keep farms and rural towns alive.
Technical.ly
a day ago
- Technical.ly
Map: Where PA's $90B AI and energy money is going — and what doesn't match up
Some of the headline-grabbing investments announced at this month's Energy and Innovation Summit in Pittsburgh don't match what companies have actually pledged. National energy and tech CEOs joined Sen. Dave McCormick and other elected officials at Carnegie Mellon University on July 15 to announce more than $90 billion for various data center and energy generation projects. While many executives at the summit credited the Trump administration for paving the way for these investments, reporting from WESA found that several of the Pennsylvania-based projects were already underway before the second Trump administration began in January. A deeper dive into the full list of investments released by McCormick's office reveals that some of those figures do not align with the pledges companies actually made in their own announcements, either. For example, the release from McCormick's office says Constellation Energy will spend $2.4 billion to increase power generation at the Limerick nuclear power plant, but the company would not confirm that amount. McCormick's office did not respond to request for comment. That's just one of the discrepancies that found. Keep reading for a breakdown of the pledges made at the summit and where those investments currently stand.
Technical.ly
a day ago
- Technical.ly
As Trump admin promotes AI plan, experts consider next steps for regulation
As the debate over artificial intelligence regulation intensifies, the divide over how and whether to rein in the technology is becoming increasingly stark. That dilemma was on display yesterday at Broadband Breakfast's latest weekly live virtual session, where a panel of experts debated competing visions for the future of AI. The panel aired the same day the Trump administration announced its AI action plan, a series of policy recommendations that pushed scaling back regulations and eliminating what a statement called 'ideological bias' in AI. The plan outlines priorities including expanding data center infrastructure and promoting American AI technology in both government and private sectors. The online discussion was moderated by Drew Clark, CEO of Breakfast Media and a longtime advocate for broadband expansion. As part of the organization's work to cover tech developments and broadband issues, Clark regularly hosts the weekly panels, which cover a wide range of topics related to internet policy. The most recent discussion touched on issues such as federal versus state AI regulations and the potential impact of AI on jobs. Here are a few key takeaways from the discussion. Best regulator remains unclear Since the president's reconciliation bill dropped a proposed AI moratorium, which would have barred states from regulating AI for 10 years, experts differ on how to best approach AI regulation. Sarah Oh Lam, senior fellow at the Technology Policy Institute, emphasized the need to strike a balance between protecting state interests and fostering AI innovation. She noted that while many existing state laws are narrow and sector-specific, targeting areas like employment or judicial proceedings, recent legislation in states like Colorado and California takes a much broader approach. 'I think it's more art than science … coming to the right balance of being able to set a floor to protect innovation and advancement of frontier models, but also letting states have some local jurisdiction,' Lam said. Chris Chambers Goodman, a professor at Pepperdine Caruso School of Law in Los Angeles, also acknowledged the downsides of a patchwork of state laws, warning that inconsistencies in definitions and regulatory scope could lead to compliance challenges and legal uncertainty. At the same time, she argued that states should serve as laboratories for experimenting with new regulations. The scholar, whose work focuses on equal protection issues including algorithmic bias, is concerned about the shift from the Biden administration's focus on safety and privacy to the Trump administration's push for rapid AI acceleration. 'We're supposed to let the states try things out, come up with rules and regulations, and then after studying if these have been effective, Congress could decide on legislation that was actually based on best practices,' Goodman said. How Trump's plan influences competition with China The experts also debated the role of China in shaping US AI policy, offering sharply contrasting views on whether the United States should treat artificial intelligence as a geopolitical race. While some panelists called for urgency and limited regulation to stay ahead, others warned that framing AI development as a race with China could lead to risky, short-sighted decisions. Adam Thierer, senior fellow at the free market-focused R Street Institute, argued that the US is locked in a 'stiff competition with China,' where leadership in AI has national security and ideological implications. He supported the Trump administration's new plan as a step toward fostering innovation and asserting American leadership in emerging technologies. 'It's not just about money and commerce,' Thierer said. 'It's also about values.' Professor Yonathan Arbel of the University of Alabama School of Law took a more cautious view. While he agreed that the US should remain competitive, he pushed back against the 'race' narrative, questioning what winning actually means in a fast-evolving field where breakthroughs are quickly matched. Arbel warned that racing ahead without proper safeguards could create harms that are difficult to undo, especially as AI systems become less transparent. 'I don't love the race metaphor, and I think it leads us down a very dark road where we have to win no matter what the price is,' Arbel said. The people's role in responsible AI use Goodman warned that AI use in government services can impact due process. She cited Covid-era welfare benefits systems that used algorithms to flag people as fraudulent based on frequent address changes, which were common due to the instability of the pandemic. 'The government owes its citizens and residents the right to due process,' she said. 'And when decisions are made by AI technologies that are infringing on those rights, then we really do have a big issue.' Lam also pointed out how humans still play a role in deploying and interpreting AI tools and how that can affect liability moving forward. 'Officials have choices between different models,' Lam said. 'So one pushback is: How is AI different from just software liability?' Maria Eberhart is a 2025-2026 corps member for Report for America, an initiative of The Groundtruth Project that pairs emerging journalists with local newsrooms. This position is supported in part by the Robert W. Deutsch Foundation and the Abell Foundation. Learn more about supporting our free and independent journalism.
