US strategy prioritizes technological dominance and deregulation, but challenges democratic values and the geopolitical balance of AI.
*By Darci de Borba
O America's AI Action Plan, (sd), The National Agenda for Sustainable Development, published by the White House in July 2025 under President Donald J. Trump, outlines an ambitious national agenda to secure U.S. technological supremacy in the age of artificial intelligence (AI). Structured around three pillars—Innovation, Infrastructure, and Diplomacy and International Security—the document proposes a set of regulatory, technological, and geopolitical actions aimed at strengthening the AI ecosystem in the country. This critical analysis seeks to highlight the main strategic axes, their implications for the international landscape, and their impact on democratic and regulatory values in the technological field.
The Action Plan recognizes AI as the new engine of industrial, informational, and cultural transformation, elevating it to the status of a national security priority. According to the document, American leadership in the sector is crucial to shaping global standards, ensuring technological sovereignty, and preventing the advance of competing powers—particularly China.
The rhetoric of the plan reveals a clearly nationalist approach, linking AI to the economic and military destiny of the United States. The promise is of a "technological renaissance" based on scientific acceleration, job creation, and the protection of values considered intrinsically American, such as freedom of expression.
Pillar I: Accelerating innovation in AI
The plan rejects regulations deemed "onerous," revoking previous executive orders that sought to impose algorithmic governance and accountability. It advocates for a free market environment where companies are encouraged to innovate with minimal state interference.
Encouraging models open-source and open-weight This is justified by both innovation and geostrategic advantages, promoting standards based on "American values." There is explicit criticism of principles such as diversity, equity, and inclusion, which are removed from... framework NIST risk assessment.
Recognizing the disruptive effects of AI on the labor market, the plan proposes retraining workers, focusing on technical training and rapid skills development for impacted sectors. It also points to the strengthening of curricula in military colleges and technical schools.
The plan also envisions widespread adoption of AI in federal agencies, with particular emphasis on interoperability mechanisms between agencies, the use of linguistic models in public services, and process automation in the Department of Defense.
Pillar II: Building AI infrastructure
AI is presented as an energy-intensive technology, requiring a leap in energy infrastructure. The plan proposes simplifying environmental licensing, using federal lands for data center construction, and rejecting "climate dogmas.".
There is a call for the restoration of domestic semiconductor manufacturing, with public investment and the easing of regulatory requirements, in order to consolidate technological autonomy in the face of external threats.
The plan articulates robust cybersecurity and critical systems resilience strategies, with the creation of secure data centers for military use and programs for the development of secure and auditable AI aimed at protecting sensitive infrastructure.
Pillar III: Diplomacy and international security in AI
A diplomatic offensive is proposed to export everything. stack American technology is being pushed to allied countries, reinforcing global dependence on US solutions and alienating partners from technologies originating in China.
The plan strengthens surveillance over exports of chips and semiconductors, including the adoption of geographical verification mechanisms, control of subcomponents, and penalties for countries that do not adhere to technological sanctions.
It opposes "vague" codes of conduct and advocates for occupying spaces in international organizations to shape AI governance standards in line with US strategic interests.
Critical Considerations
The Trump administration's America's AI Action Plan establishes a robust set of initiatives aimed at U.S. global leadership in AI, with an emphasis on innovation, infrastructure, and international security. From a global perspective, the plan could intensify technological competition between the United States and China, especially by proposing export controls on semiconductors and critical AI infrastructure, which could lead to the fragmentation of the global market. (Nanni et al., 2024). By prioritizing AI models that uphold American values such as freedom of expression and transparency, the plan could reinforce global standards aligned with the American vision, reducing Chinese influence in international technology governance bodies.
For Brazil, the impact of the plan could be ambiguous. On the one hand, the strengthening of export controls and technological diplomacy initiatives suggest a greater alignment of allied and partner countries with American technological standards. In this sense, Brazil could benefit from receiving support in infrastructure, workforce training, and access to open models and American technologies. On the other hand, Brazil could face difficulties if it chooses to maintain a more independent stance, particularly regarding the adoption of Chinese technology in critical areas such as telecommunications and energy infrastructure, since the plan's protectionist measures would hinder such an approach. (DePaula et al., 2024).
However, the strategy of reducing bureaucracy and accelerating innovation foreseen in the plan also opens opportunities for Brazil to accelerate its own technological agenda. If the country decides to adopt open standards and... frameworks Supported by the US, it could benefit from greater exchange of scientific data and access to advanced infrastructure. Furthermore, by encouraging professional training in AI as a central theme, the plan could motivate similar initiatives in Brazil, increasing the employability and competitiveness of Brazilian workers on the international stage.
America's AI Action Plan represents an important milestone in the formulation of national artificial intelligence policies, reflecting an approach centered on geopolitical competition, strengthening technological sovereignty, and accelerating industrial development. However, its success will depend on the ability to balance innovation with social responsibility, sovereignty with international cooperation, and growth with sustainability. The American experience can offer valuable lessons to Brazil and other developing nations, but it must be read critically, especially regarding the protection of fundamental rights, the democratic regulation of technology, and the role of the State as guarantor of the public good.
Finally, a potential negative consequence of the plan would be a widening of the technological gap between countries directly aligned with the US and those seeking strategic neutrality, as Brazil has historically done. A strict adoption of technological controls by the US could restrict Brazil's strategic options, pressuring the country to make more explicit diplomatic decisions regarding technological adoption and geopolitical alignment. In this sense, it will be crucial for Brazil to define clear strategies for technological cooperation and evaluate the costs and benefits of adhering to the norms and standards promoted by the plan. Despite its internal coherence and strategic ambition, the plan raises important concerns.
References
America's AI Action Plan. ([sd]).
DePaula, N., Gao, L., Mellouli, S., Luna-Reyes, L. F., & Harrison, T. M. (2024). Regulating the machine: An exploratory study of US state legislation addressing artificial intelligence, 2019-2023. In H. Liao, D. Cid, M. Macadar, & F. Bernardini (Eds.), PROCEEDINGS OF THE 25TH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DIGITAL GOVERNMENT RESEARCH, DGO 2024 (pp. 815–826). ASSOC COMPUTING MACHINERY. https://doi.org/10.1145/3657054.3657148
Nanni, R., Bizzaro, P. G., & Napolitano, M. (2024). The false promise of individual digital sovereignty in Europe: Comparing artificial intelligence and data regulations in China and the European Union. In POLICY AND INTERNET (Vol. 16, Number 4, pp. 711–726). WILEY. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.424
*Darci de Borba is a researcher at ABES Think Tank, planning and research technician at Ipea, PhD in Administration from the University of Vale do Rio dos Sinos (UNISINOS) and Master in Administration from the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS).
Notice: The opinion presented in this article is the responsibility of its author and not of ABES - Brazilian Association of Software Companies
Article originally published on the IT Forum website: https://itforum.com.br/colunas/americas-ai-action-plan/
