
The American AI Narrative and the Influence of Tech Giants
In early May, Sam Altman traveled to Washington to share a story about America. Appearing before a Senate committee, Altman described how he grew up during the internet's rise, spending late nights in his family’s attic learning to code on products invented in the United States—personal computers, silicon chips, and software. This early exposure to the “spirit of American innovation,” he told the senators, set him on a path to found OpenAI, launch ChatGPT, and spark the AI boom. “I think America is just an incredible and special thing,” he said, “and it will not only be the place where the AI revolution happens but all the revolutions after.”
Altman’s written testimony, submitted to the Senate, added an important note that he did not mention aloud. “This future can be almost unimaginably bright,” OpenAI’s CEO wrote, but only if “an American-led version of AI, built on democratic values like freedom and transparency, prevails over an authoritarian one.” Silicon Valley’s tech giants have reframed the AI boom as more than just scientific and economic advancement—it has become a clash of civilizations. They are focused on competition with China, believing that Chinese AI, if it surpasses its American counterpart, could extend a repressive surveillance state globally.
Despite this rhetoric, it is unclear whether AI companies are actively upholding American freedoms. Instead, they seem more interested in what America can do for them.
The Rise of AI and the Fear of Authoritarianism
China has long been a concern for tech leaders. Eric Schmidt, Sheryl Sandberg, and others have warned about the need to outpace China in various technologies—including AI, quantum computing, and 5G. These concerns have grown louder since the launch of ChatGPT. Dario Amodei, CEO of OpenAI’s rival Anthropic, wrote last fall that “AI-powered authoritarianism seems too terrible to contemplate.” Democracies, he continued, must unite to stay ahead.
Silicon Valley has always had certain American ideals embedded in its culture: individualism, the belief that you can build anything you dream of, and the promise that hard work will pay off. However, the previous tech revolution—the arrival of the social web and smartphones—was framed as a path toward global connection and democratization. Now, the arrival of artificial intelligence has taken on a distinctly “America First” tone.
There are two main ways to understand what is happening here. One view suggests that the world’s most powerful tech companies are aligning with the current ruling political class in America, framing their missions in ways they believe will favor MAGA Republicans, particularly Donald Trump, to avoid regulation and enrich themselves. Another perspective is that these companies are producing dramatic innovation that, in earlier eras, would have been under the purview of the U.S. government, and they recognize the responsibility they have to the world’s citizens. The truth lies somewhere in between.
The AI War and the Role of the Trump Administration
Since Trump’s victory, Altman, Amodei, and their peers have become more forceful in their warnings. Generative AI, they argue, could supercharge China’s economy, propaganda apparatus, espionage capabilities, and coercive tactics—and even make its military more powerful than our own. Last month, Anthropic published a report on how to “Build AI in America” and “compete with China.” Alexandr Wang, former CEO of Scale AI and now chief AI officer at Meta, has told the Trump administration that the U.S. and China are in an “AI war.” Earlier this summer, executives from OpenAI, Meta, and Palantir joined a new Army detachment, the Executive Innovation Corps, to serve as part-time advisers. The group aims to “marry the nation’s most innovative private companies with our most important military missions.”
In the U.S., democracy and AI have become conjoined in a catchphrase. The highest echelon of American AI firms—including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Microsoft, Scale, Meta, and Palantir—all made recommendations to the Trump administration as it developed its “AI Action Plan,” appealing to variations on “democratic AI,” “American” ideals, and “Western” values. Similar invocations of democracy and American leadership appear in the lobbying documents, policy proposals, interviews, and congressional testimonies of these companies and their executives.
When the AI Action Plan was unveiled last month, Trump gave the industry a green light to develop new products with limited oversight. He promised few roadblocks would stand between them and the buildout of economically and environmentally costly infrastructure. “Our children will not live in a planet controlled by the algorithms” of our “adversaries,” President Trump declared when he announced the plan.
The Paradox of Democratic AI
But “democratic AI,” under a president who has already tried to overturn an election, may prove to be a misnomer. Tech firms have long demonstrated a willingness to act in their own interests, not the greater good. Now, the AI boom offers a way to conscript the American project to advance their techno-utopian visions, not the other way around.
OpenAI recently launched OpenAI for Countries, its version of the Marshall Plan: a project to “spread democratic AI” to other nations in the form of ChatGPT. Microsoft, Amazon, Nvidia, and other prominent AI firms also describe spreading their products and services around the globe as a sort of diplomacy on behalf of the U.S. Meanwhile, OpenAI and its rivals have become more aggressive in their efforts to keep individual users walled into their chatbots, where the companies can accrue valuable data and charge subscription fees.
The Need for Government Approval and the Risks of Dependency
The tech industry’s new ambitions—using AI to reshape not just work, school, and social life but perhaps even governance itself—do have a major vulnerability: the AI patriots desperately need the president’s approval. Chatbots rely on enormous data centers and energy infrastructure that depend on the government to permit and expedite major construction projects. AI products, which are still fallible and have yet to show a clear path to profits, are in need of every bit of grandiose marketing—and all the potentially lucrative government and military contracts—available.
Zuckerberg, who is also aggressively pursuing AI development, said in a Meta earnings call, “We now have a U.S. administration that is proud of our leading companies, prioritizes American technology winning, and that will defend our values and interests abroad.” Altman, once a vocal opponent of Trump, has written that he now believes that Trump “will be incredible for the country in many ways!”
This dependence has led to a kind of cognitive dissonance. In this early stage of the AI boom, Silicon Valley, for all its impunity, has chosen not to voice robust ideas about democracy that differ substantively from the whims of a mercurial White House. As millions of everyday citizens, current and former government officials, lawyers and academics, and dissidents from dictatorships around the world have warned that the Trump administration is eroding American democracy, AI companies have remained mostly supportive or silent despite their own bombastic rhetoric about protecting democracy.
Conclusion
The AI industry’s belief that its products can drastically improve the world may be genuine, but the rationale underlying its insistence is shallow at best. AI’s titans seem far less concerned with America as a democratic project and more interested in it as a brand, financier, and regulatory backer. Perhaps AI executives are also now AI patriots, but that is a secondary occupation; faith in technological acceleration, and maintaining their own power, still transcends a commitment to democracy.





