Example Image
Civitas Outlook
Topic
Economic Dynamism
Published on
Apr 16, 2025
Contributors
Veronique de Rugy
(Shutterstock)

Trump Undermines His Growth Agenda for AI

Contributors
Veronique de Rugy
Veronique de Rugy
Veronique de Rugy
Summary
Leading in AI and helping workers requires the rejection of the economic fallacies of the populist left.
Summary
Leading in AI and helping workers requires the rejection of the economic fallacies of the populist left.
Listen to this article

If Republicans are serious about making America the world’s leader in artificial intelligence, and if they truly want to lift workers, they must stop pirating economic policies from the left. The GOP’s ongoing realignment has led to a troubling embrace of protectionism, disturbing flirtations with higher taxes, and the use of class-war rhetoric that’s indistinguishable from progressive talking points.

The irony is that these policies don’t help workers; they hurt workers. And they won’t secure AI leadership; they’ll surrender it.

Many believe winning the AI race is not a symbolic goal but a strategic imperative. Without a thriving, innovation-first ecosystem, America cannot dominate in defense, biotech, advanced manufacturing, or cloud infrastructure. The authors of the recent Executive Order on Reducing the Anti-Competitive Regulatory Barriers seem to understand this point. That E.O. states that "Federal regulations should not predetermine economic winners and losers,” and it plans to remove "Regulations that reduce competition, entrepreneurship, and innovation—as well as the benefits they create for American consumers—should be eliminated."

However, an innovative ecosystem also relies on market-driven capital formation, fast scaling, and wide and ready access to inputs—all of which are undermined by the policies many Republicans now embrace.

Take tax policy. It’s no secret that Democrats have long proclaimed their desire to jack up taxes on the rich and corporations – on wealth and capital – without caring about the negative impact on investment and global competitiveness of the U.S. Until recently, Republicans took the opposite approach. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is a good example of that difference. It lowered the corporate tax rate to 21%, passed full R&D expensing, and introduced other pro-growth provisions. These reforms didn’t favor corporations for the sake of corporations. Instead, these reforms were meant to promote more innovation, higher wages, and better jobs.

Undoing these reforms, including raising taxes on corporations or even on top marginal income earners, as some Republicans are now talking about, would be a self-inflicted wound that Democrats would cheer. And the loudest cheers would come from that party’s left-most flank.

In addition, AI dominance won’t be won in a lab alone; it will be built on a foundation of massive computational power, which depends on abundant, affordable energy. Training large language models, powering data centers, running advanced simulations, and enabling autonomous systems require enormous amounts of electricity. Energy demand from AI and cloud computing is expected to skyrocket over the next decade. This reality means that America’s ability to lead in AI is inseparable from its ability to produce and distribute cheap, reliable energy at scale.

If implemented, the Trump administration's deregulatory agenda would be highly conducive to more energy abundance. However, the protectionist policies embraced by Trump and his populist allies directly and massively threaten this energy future. Tariffs on imported steel, aluminum, solar panels, and critical minerals raise energy infrastructure costs—everything from power lines and substations to wind turbines and battery storage. Add tariffs on other inputs, and you get a full-spectrum attack on the very supply chains needed to support advanced computing. This protectionism is economic self-sabotage disguised as patriotism.

Worse still, tariffs and economic chaos have broader geopolitical consequences. As Adam Thierer of R Street points out, “Trump’s trade war is going to undermine much of the good that Trump’s AI agenda could do, especially by driving old allies right into the arms of the Chinese govt.” He warns that U.S. allies like the EU might soon “cut a deal with the CCP to run DeepSeek & other Chinese AI on everything and box out US AI apps entirely.” In other words, protectionism isn’t just bad economics; it’s a strategic gift to Beijing.

If America wants to dominate AI, it must be the easiest place in the world to build data centers, deploy energy infrastructure, and scale up high-tech manufacturing. It cannot afford a bureaucratic maze with artificially inflated costs. Protectionism doesn't protect American workers; it protects inefficiency. Tariffs are a tax on us, and they are a tax especially on the very future we claim to want. In the race for AI, where speed and scale are everything, inefficiency is fatal.

Unfortunately, the need to defend the president’s protectionist policies and their wealth destruction has also led some administration members, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in particular, to embrace one of Democrats’ favorite economic myths: pitting Wall Street against Main Street. Peddling this myth was recently decried by the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal, who wrote in response to Trump-era tariff rhetoric:

Everyone wants Main Street to prosper, but pitting Wall Street against the rest of the country is one of the hoariest pages in the faux populist handbook… Wall Street as defined by the stock and financial markets is integral to prosperity on Main Street.

Exactly. Financial markets aren’t the enemy of working people; they’re how businesses get funded, workers get hired, and retirements get secured. About 60% of Americans own stocks directly or through retirement accounts. When tariffs or taxes spook the market, it’s not hedge funds that suffer most; it’s middle-income Americans watching their 401(k)s shrink.

Capital and labor are not adversaries. They are partners in economic growth. Republicans tempted by a class-warfare rhetoric should remember this bit of wisdom from the great economist Thomas Sowell. He said:

It was Thomas Edison who brought us electricity, not the Sierra Club. It was the Wright brothers who got us off the ground, not the Federal Aviation Administration. It was Henry Ford who ended the isolation of millions of Americans by making the automobile affordable, not Ralph Nadder.
Those who have helped the poor the most have not been those who have gone around loudly expressing “compassion” for the poor, but those who found ways to make industry more productive and distribution more efficient, so that the poor today can afford things that the affluent of yesterday could only dream about.

The future belongs to the country that gets its policies right—policies on innovation, labor, capital, and trade. America has every advantage: world-class institutions, an entrepreneurial culture, deep and sophisticated capital markets, and a skilled workforce. But we risk squandering all of it by peddling bad ideas borrowed from the left.

Populist slogans will not win the AI race, tariffs will not build resilient supply chains, and higher taxes will not create high-wage jobs. Republicans once understood this reality. If they want to lead again, they should stop railing against the free market and build a future that works for everyone.

Veronique de Rugy is the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and a nationally syndicated columnist. She is a contributing editor to Civitas Outlook.

10:13
1x
10:13
More articles

Becoming a Deficit Nation

Politics
May 19, 2025

Trump, Lincoln and a ‘Habeas Corpus Threat’

Constitutionalism
May 18, 2025
View all

Join the newsletter

Receive new publications, news, and updates from the Civitas Institute.

Sign up
More on

Economic Dynamism

Partisan Trust in the Federal Reserve

This paper examines partisanship in public perceptions of the Federal Reserve.

Carola Binder, Cody Couture, Abhiprerna Smit
Economic Dynamism
Apr 22, 2025
The American Dream Is Not a Coin Flip, and Wages Have Not Stagnated

This paper challenges the prevailing narrative that stagnant wages are causing the American dream to fade. It contrasts subjective public opinion with revised objective intergenerational mobility measures.

Scott Winship
Economic Dynamism
Mar 6, 2025
Political Economy and the Rise of Commercial Humanism

Western attitudes toward commerce have transformed from early moral condemnation to a modern appreciation that sees trade as socially beneficial.

Erik Matson
Economic Dynamism
Feb 28, 2025
Why Failure-to-Market Claims Are Preempted Under Federal Law

A California appellate court invented out of whole cloth a new and troubling theory of tort liability.

Richard Epstein, Benjamin Flowers
Economic Dynamism
Feb 5, 2025
No items found.
The High Cost of California’s Green Energy Policies

California can only prosper if it can develop affordable, reliable energy from all sources, including the state’s fossil fuel supplies.

Joel Kotkin
Economic Dynamism
May 7, 2025
A Bad Business on the Bayou

Chevron finds itself the victim of a political alliance between the tort bar and Louisiana Republicans.

Michael Toth
Economic Dynamism
Apr 1, 2025
Congress Must Shield US Companies from European Regulations

Congress should exercise its constitutional powers over foreign commerce to guard American companies against overregulation by the European Union.

Michael Toth
Economic Dynamism
Mar 27, 2025
ESG Would Rain on Spring Break

Americans have access to abundant, reliable energy, unlike Europeans under strict climate mandates.

Michael Toth
Economic Dynamism
Mar 10, 2025

Virginia Postrel and Adam Thierer on Big Trends and Big Ideas in Dynamism

Economic Dynamism
Apr 29, 2025
1:05

Joel Mokyr on American Dynamism vs. Techno-pessimism

Economic Dynamism
Apr 29, 2025
1:05

Arthur Herman on Mobility, Markets, and Natural Law

Economic Dynamism
Apr 29, 2025
1:05

Dignity and Dynamism: The Future of Conservative Technology Policy

Economic Dynamism
Mar 5, 2025
1:05

Edward Glaeser on Dynamism and Stagnation

Economic Dynamism
May 8, 2024
1:05
No items found.
No items found.
Vision of the Newly Anointed

Incoherence as a basis for fiscal policy.

Veronique de Rugy
Economic Dynamism
May 13, 2025
Google Under Fire

Will the judicial effort to aid Google’s direct competitors in the search and ads markets compromise the welfare of its consumers?

Richard Epstein
Economic Dynamism
May 13, 2025
California's “License to Kill" the American Auto Industry

Will California be allowed to reshape the American automobile market?

Paul J. Larkin
Economic Dynamism
May 12, 2025
Did 'China Shock' Throw Millions of Americans Out of Work?

The decline in manufacturing employment began long before the China Shock, NAFTA, President Trump's decrying of the trade deficit in the 1980s, and the trade deficit itself opening up in the 1970s.

Scott Winship, Bryan Riley
Economic Dynamism
May 7, 2025
No items found.