Technology policy is a key issue for the American public. Questions about disruptive technologies such as AI, data centers, and Flock cameras are hotly debated. But what are the political implications?
U.S. voters are sharply focused on technology this year. Trust in Silicon Valley companies is low and communities have reacted viscerally to the physical realities-especially data centers-of the AI era. Candidates from both parties have run campaigns around limiting data center development and restricting police use of Flock cameras that can use AI to track cars around the U.S. It is not yet clear that the electoral attention will mean a significant shift toward firmer digital governance, though some changes are already underway. The recent settlement between Meta and a bipartisan group of attorneys general from U.S. states was only possible with widespread political support for protecting young people online. But significant new federal U.S. technology rules, driven by policymakers, are still likely a ways away.
The Turn Against Data Centers
AI might be unpopular, but investment into AI is driving U.S. market growth and is a source of U.S. geopolitical leverage. Why, then, are election campaigns shifting against tech, and AI in particular? Not all are optimistic about the way it is shaping the future. The debate over existential AI risks has entered the mainstream. In the short term, there is evidence that AI is starting to impact the job market, especially for young people. The construction and operation of data centers to power AI is a factor in rising energy prices as the surge in demand outpaces supply. The ongoing war with Iran means prices are unlikely to come down anytime soon.
A broad group of communities and interests have sought to slow down the rapid data center buildout. Political observers were caught off-guard at how quickly the data center backlash arose. A bipartisan collection of governors have intervened in their states. New York and Texas are among a group of states that have limited new data centers. President Trump has continued supporting rapid AI development, citing competition with China and a concern that an AI slowdown would mean slow markets. The government is taking steps to keep the construction going. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to make data center construction easier while limiting public engagement in the permitting process.
A broad group of communities have sought to slow down the rapid data center buildout.
Congress may pass legislation aimed at reducing data center pressure on consumer energy rates and the House already passed a bill with broad bipartisan support, but many states are already enacting rules on their own and advocacy organizations are skeptical it will have much impact. For now, there is bipartisan support for some form of rules governing AI or data centers though that may change as party leaders work toward common positions.
Controlling AI
There is rhetorical agreement among political and corporate leaders that humans should maintain control over AI and the benefits should be shared widely, but they do not agree on the mechanisms. Some of the ideas, like creating a U.S. sovereign wealth fund for AI, could lead to more international tension. Europe is prioritizing digital sovereignty over fears that the U.S. government will continue to cut off access to core digital services. The U.S. government directive to Anthropic earlier this year targeting foreign access to cutting edge models raised alarm bells in Europe. The European Commission quickly raised objections. Anthropic restored access to the models but the U.S. government remains on alert about security risks of frontier AI models and could very well unilaterally cut off access again in the future.
In the U.S., Americans are so far more concerned about the potential for mass unemployment from AI than the security and existential risks. If the Democrats win Congress, they plan to focus on AI, but they will have to decide how to address the range of issues competing for attention under the broad umbrella of AI governance. Some members of Congress are seeking a law that would regulate frontier AI models to ensure developers are managing security risks. California and New York have already passed such laws. As is often the case, there is tension between lawmakers as federal proposals threaten to preempt state rules just as those rules are being implemented. Meanwhile, progressive civil society is focused on issues like labor, climate, and surveillance that voters can feel more directly. Democrats have an opportunity to develop a uniform voice on AI governance that responds to the political energy, but it will not be easy.
Concerns about Cameras
For Americans, one technology company in particular has served as a focus of the resistance to surveillance and authoritarianism. Thousands of police departments in the U.S. have partnered with Flock, which operates a network of cameras called Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) that can track and locate cars across the country. There are worrying reports of abuse of the technology with reports of police officers using it to track their exes and, at least in one case, to track a woman seeking an abortion after they were made illegal in her home state.
The anger is an extension of the protests in response to ICE raids and mass deportations
The outrage over Flock cameras has gone viral. The anger is an extension of the protests in response to ICE raids and mass deportations in U.S. cities in 2025 and 2026. ICE does not directly have access to Flock data, but police departments can and do share access to Flock data with ICE. A number of state governments, led by both Democrats and Republicans, have reduced the use of ALPR devices. Members of Congress opposed to widespread surveillance have introduced legislation to limit the use of Flock and similar devices, however, President Trump has supported their use. As with AI, any significant change in federal rules to limit surveillance is unlikely during the remainder of his term.
Rules for Young People
With federal inaction, states have imposed their own rules to govern technology. Meta’s addictive design settlement was possible through collaboration and pressure from a broad coalition of states. Meta agreed to pay a settlement payment and to implement platform changes for young people, such as limiting infinite scroll on social media and the total time that can be spent on their platforms. Meta is hoping the changes become the industry standard. These are significant changes for users, but far from comprehensive. For example, the settlement does not directly address the potential dependency on AI chatbots, which some states are now seeking to address.
There is strong global pressure to protect young people online, and while the efforts are often disconnected, the same dependency anxieties driving EU digital sovereignty efforts are influencing European regulation. The European Commission is also targeting addictive design under the Digital Services Act and has proposed similar limits on social media for children that extends to AI chatbots. Those changes could lead to similar design changes in both the U.S. and EU. However, the unilateral national rules push platforms toward blanket age verification, which can harm the very users the rules are intended to protect. Critics have pointed out that many of the changes are already leading the platforms to block services or collect much more personal data. Despite some common ground, the growing interest in the U.S. for tech accountability stands in contrast with the EU’s desire to deregulate and slow enforcement of some tech rules in an effort to better compete with the U.S. and China.
The election this year already shows the potential for technology policy to become a mainstream political issue.
The opportunities for significant changes in technology policy in the U.S. are limited for now but the possibility is there. President Trump is prioritizing U.S. technology industry dominance over the populist demand for greater democratic control, but the election this year already shows the potential for technology policy to become a mainstream political issue. As AI reshapes our society, and landscapes, voters are likely to keep pushing for political leaders who offer a technology future they want.
