AI for Power or Progress? A Human-Centered Response to America’s AI Action Plan

The release of America’s AI Action Plan marks a watershed moment in global technology policy. With its sweeping ambition, the plan boldly stakes the United States’ claim in the race for AI dominance—prioritizing innovation, infrastructure, and geopolitics. But beneath the powerful rhetoric of progress lies a deeper question: What kind of future are we racing toward?

At The Digital Economist, we believe in shaping not only the tools of tomorrow but also the values that govern their use. Our mission—anchored in a human-centered economy—asks us to consider whether accelerating AI should come at the expense of equity, sustainability, or truth. As I read the plan, I’m reminded of why institutions like ours must remain steadfast in our commitment to responsibility, systems-level thinking, and shared prosperity.

What We Welcome

There are parts of the plan we can align with. Investments in workforce transformation, AI literacy, and scientific research signal that technology can and should empower people. The emphasis on AI adoption in critical sectors like healthcare and manufacturing is overdue. And the push to create open-source ecosystems and transparent AI evaluations could help build the trust AI so desperately needs.

These are building blocks—what we at The Digital Economist call the "intelligence infrastructure" of the future economy.

What Gives Us Pause

But let us be clear: America’s AI Action Plan is not neutral.

The wholesale removal of guardrails—such as ethical constraints around bias, misinformation, climate impact, and inclusion—risks creating a brittle and extractive AI landscape. Deregulation is framed as a patriotic act, but at what cost? When references to diversity, equity, or the environment are purged from national standards, we are not clearing red tape—we are abandoning responsibility.

The plan’s vision of “objective” AI dangerously ignores the fact that data is never neutral, and models reflect societal patterns—including discrimination and exclusion. By stripping away this nuance, the plan invites a false binary between innovation and ethics. At The Digital Economist, we reject this framing.

The Missing Pillar: Governance

Where this plan falls short is in its near-total absence of bottom-up, democratic governance. There is no meaningful engagement with communities impacted by AI, no mechanisms for accountability, no focus on global ethical frameworks. In international fora, the emphasis is on exporting U.S. tech—rather than co-creating interoperable, inclusive standards.

It assumes leadership through control, not collaboration. But sustainable leadership in the AI age will depend on legitimacy, not just leverage.

Our Position: Tech for Human Dignity

We urge policymakers, innovators, and business leaders to view this moment not as a race for supremacy—but as a turning point in how we redefine intelligence itself. True progress is measured not by compute capacity or data center acreage, but by how technology uplifts the human condition.

The Digital Economist remains committed to:

• Designing equitable AI systems that work for everyone

• Upholding transparency and interpretability, not only performance

• Embedding ethical reflection into every phase of AI development

• Building shared global standards rooted in justice, not just competitiveness
  

We will continue convening, educating, and supporting leaders who share our belief: AI must serve the whole of humanity—not just its most powerful actors.

A Final Word

The U.S. may win the AI race. But the real question is—will we also win the peace, the dignity, and the trust that define leadership in the 21st century?

Let’s not confuse acceleration with direction. At The Digital Economist, we choose the harder path: one that centers people, planet, and purpose.