The U.S. Artificial Intelligence Action Plan is due any day now, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. The Trump administration asked the public earlier this year to help shape the plan. Over 10,000 responses poured in from tech giants, startups, venture capitalists, academics, nonprofit leaders and everyday citizens. What emerged from this unprecedented consultation is not just a collection of comments. It's a revealing portrait of the tensions shaping America's AI debate.

The country is divided, not only between industry and civil society, but within the tech sector itself. If the U.S. is to lead responsibly in AI, federal policymakers must look beyond industry talking points and confront the deeper-value conflicts that these responses lay bare.

Our team analyzed the full set of public comments using a combination of machine learning and qualitative review. We grouped responses into six distinct “AI worldviews,” ranging from accelerationists advocating rapid, deregulated deployment to public interest advocates prioritizing equity and democratic safeguards. We also classified submitters by sector: big tech, small tech (including VCs) and civil society. The result offers a more structured picture of America’s AI discourse and a clearer understanding of where consensus ends and conflict begins.

Industry and civil society are polar opposites: 78% of industry actors are accelerationists or national security hawks, while close to 75% of civil society respondents focus on public interest and responsible AI advocacy.

The Innovation vs. Governance: A Fault Line

Tech companies overwhelmingly support U.S. global leadership in AI and warn against a fragmented regulatory landscape. OpenAI called on the federal government to preempt the “patchwork of regulations” that risk “undermining America’s leadership position.” Meta warned that diverging rules “could impede innovation and investment.” Leading VCs, including Andreessen Horowitz and True Ventures, echoed these concerns, cautioning against “preemptively burdening developers with onerous requirements” and pushing for a “l(fā)ight-touch” federal framework to protect early-stage startups from compliance burdens. The House included a controversial provision in Trump’s budget bill that would have imposed a 10-year ban on state-level AI regulation, but the Senate struck it down Tuesday, sparking renewed debate.

Yet these voices are far from unified. Traditional enterprise firms like Microsoft and IBM adopt a more measured stance, pairing calls for innovation with proposals for voluntary standards, documentation and public-private partnerships. In contrast, frontier labs and VCs resist binding rules unless clear harms have already materialized.

Meanwhile, civil society groups, ranging from the Electronic Frontier Foundation to the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, argue that those harms are not hypothetical, but are here now. Biased hiring algorithms, surveillance creep in policing, and opaque decision systems in healthcare and housing have already caused real damage. These organizations support enforceable audits, copyright protections, community oversight and redress mechanisms. Their vision of “AI safety” is grounded not in national competitiveness, but in civil rights and systemic accountability.

Shared Priorities, Divergent Principles

Despite philosophical divides, there is some common ground. Nearly all industry actors agree on the need for federal investment in AI infrastructure, energy, compute clusters and workforce development. Microsoft has committed $50 billion to U.S. AI infrastructure; Anthropic warned that powering a single model might soon require five gigawatts of electricity. Industry wants government support to scale AI systems and do it fast.

But when it comes to accountability, consensus collapses. Industry prefers internal testing and voluntary guidelines. Civil society demands external scrutiny and binding oversight. Even the very definition of "safety" differs. For tech companies, it’s a technical challenge; for civil society, it’s a question of power, rights and trust.

Why This Matters for the Action Plan

Policymakers face a strategic choice. They can lean into the innovation-at-all-costs agenda championed by accelerationist voices. Or they can take seriously the concerns about democratic erosion, labor dislocation and social harms raised by civil society.

But this isn’t a binary choice. Our findings suggest a path forward: a governance model that promotes innovation while embedding accountability. This will require more than voluntary commitments. It demands federal leadership to harmonize rules, incentivize best practices, and protect the public interest.

Congress has a central role to play. Litigation and antitrust cases may offer remedies for past harms, but they are ill-equipped to prevent new ones. Proactive tools, including sector-specific regulation, dynamic governance frameworks and public participation are needed to build guardrails before disaster strikes.

Crucially, the government must also resist the temptation to treat “the tech sector” as a monolith. Our analysis shows that big tech includes both risk-conscious institutional players and aggressive frontier labs. Small tech spans open-source champions, privacy hawks and compliance minimalists. Civil society encompasses not only activists, but also major non-tech corporations such as JPMorgan Chase and Johnson & Johnson, whose AI priorities often bridge commercial and public interest values.

Bridging the Divide

There is no perfect formula for balancing speed and safety. But failing to bridge the value divide between industry and civil society risks eroding public trust in AI altogether. The public is skeptical, and rightfully so. In hundreds of comments, individuals voiced concerns about job loss, copyright theft, disinformation and surveillance. They didn’t offer policy blueprints; instead, they demanded something more essential: accountability.

If the U.S. wants to lead in AI, it must lead not just in model performance, it needs to lead in model governance. That means designing a system where all stakeholders, not just the largest companies, have a seat at the table. The Action Plan must reflect the complexity of the moment and should not merely echo the priorities of the powerful.

The people have spoken. The challenge now is whether Washington will listen — not just to those who build the future, but to those who must live in it.

The above is the detailed content of The People Have Spoken About Trump's AI Plan. Will Washington Listen?. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!