Crossed Wires?
Technology has consistently been atop the transatlantic policy agenda, with the United States and the EU racing to maintain leadership and set democratic standards for key technologies. The next occupant of the White House will inherit major portfolios related to them, from innovation policy and artificial intelligence (AI) to semiconductor manufacturing and green technologies. In each of these, the new president will face a choice: stay the course, tweak the approach, or redo it. Europe can best prepare for a new administration and uphold transatlantic technology leadership by strengthening coherence in its own technology agenda, including its digital rulebook and economic security measures.
AI Innovation and Governance
Whereas a Kamala Harris administration would “reject the false choice” between AI innovation and responsible governance, Donald Trump’s return to power would lead to far less emphasis on mitigating risks or harms. As “AI czar”, the current vice president promoted the flagship executive order to advance “safe, secure, and trustworthy” AI. She also shepherded industry heads to make voluntary AI commitments and represented the United States at the AI Safety Summit in the United Kingdom. Were she to occupy the Oval Office, her administration would likely expand initiatives to realize AI’s benefits for the public interest by harnessing civil society for the protection of digital rights and promoting international collaboration across a network of national AI safety institutes.
The 2024 GOP platform, in contrast, promises to repeal Biden’s “dangerous” executive order that “hinders AI Innovation, and imposes Radical Leftwing ideas on the development of this technology”. As reported by The Washington Post, a Trump-aligned think tank’s plans to “Make America First in AI” would entail a new order establishing “industry-led” agencies to evaluate AI models, a review of “unnecessary and burdensome regulations”, and “Manhattan projects” on military technology. The first Trump administration’s executive order on Maintaining American Leadership in AI stipulated that “federal agencies must avoid regulatory or non-regulatory actions that needlessly hamper AI innovation and growth.”
Antitrust and Platform Regulation
Competition policy under Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan has followed a doctrine aimed at combating harms to innovation from a concentrated technology sector. A Harris administration may continue this approach, including via the FTC’s consumer protection enforcement in the AI sector and its inquiry into generative AI firms and cloud service providers, despite emerging tensions in the Democratic party. Some major donors have, in fact, called for Harris to replace Khan.
Competition-policy debates among conservatives are also raging. One section of Project 2025, cited as a blueprint for a second Trump administration (although he has distanced himself from it), recommends that the FTC investigate how Big Tech acquires and maintains market power. Another section questions if the FTC should even exist. Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance has claimed that “it’s time to break up Google” and expressed support for Khan. Under either administration, the current docket of antitrust cases brought by the FTC, the Department of Justice, and states’ attorneys-general against Google, Apple, and Amazon will likely continue.
On digital platform regulation, Harris supports the Kids Online Safety Act, and her administration would likely continue to advocate for stricter guardrails to prevent cyberbullying, harassment, and self-harm. She spearheaded privacy efforts as California attorney general and would likely continue to call for federal privacy legislation and Section 230 reform. The 2024 GOP platform expresses concern about censorship and protecting “Free Speech online”, and Project 2025 recommends “reining in Big Tech” through fundamental Section 230 reform and imposing transparency requirements for platform decisions that block or prioritize content. Trump's own anti-platform stance is rooted primarily in personal grievance and would likely result in headline-grabbing congressional investigations but little significant legislation.
Technology Competition with China
Bipartisan concern about China means technology competition will remain a priority for either administration, which will respond by promoting US innovation leadership and extricating US investment that enables Chinese military ambitions or human rights abuses. Differences lie in approach and degree.
Innovation Leadership
Harris would continue to implement the Biden administration’s flagship industrial policies—the CHIPS and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)—and proceed with investment in areas such as semiconductors, AI, green technology, biotechnology, and quantum information. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo has even called for a “CHIPS II”, and Harris would also likely promote domestic infrastructure such as broadband deployment.
A Trump-Vance administration would push US leadership in AI and commercial space technology. The GOP platform also focuses disproportionately on crypto, and Trump has promised to make the United States the “crypto capital of the planet”. “Trumpenomics” prioritizes American manufacturing, albeit via fossil fuel extraction rather than green technologies. Project 2025 calls for repealing the IRA and rescinding all unspent funds. In practice, however, that may be difficult to do since red-state politicians who receive the bulk of the funding support the act. Funding for the bipartisan CHIPS Act would also likely continue, including to foreign firms such as TSMC, despite Trump’s inaccurate claim that Taiwan “stole” the American semiconductor industry.
Derisking vs. Decoupling
A Harris administration is likely to continue building out Biden’s targeted derisking agenda. This would comprise actions such as finalizing an outbound investment-screening regime on certain US investments in China-based semiconductor, quantum information technology, and AI companies, and pursuing the “small yard, high fence” policy of export controls to restrict Chinese access to advanced semiconductors and manufacturing equipment.
The first Trump administration spouted tough rhetoric on China and introduced measures such as the foreign direct product rule on Huawei, the Clean Network Initiative, and the (failed) attempts to ban TikTok and WeChat. Trump’s views on China, however, are inconsistent. He has recently reversed course on a TikTok ban, saying “I’m for TikTok.” Trump’s latest proposal for a 60% tariff on all Chinese goods and the strong anti-Beijing stance of Project 2025 suggest a commitment to a broad-spectrum economic decoupling agenda, with less emphasis on targeting specific critical sectors.
Implications for Europe
The next European Commission also assumes a hefty technology agenda as the EU stakes out a position on techno-economic security and implements the AI Act, Digital Markets Act, and Digital Services Act (including ongoing probes into US technology firms). Brussels’ growing concern about dependence on Chinese green technologies, batteries, and critical minerals, its investigations into Chinese cleantech subsidies, and its efforts to derisk on AI, quantum computing, and biotech are moving the EU toward a closer alignment with likely US policy under either administration.
The bloc could expect the Trade and Technology Council to continue under a Harris administration while the chances of deft transatlantic coordination diminish under Trump. EU officials have preempted these concerns, stating that “the momentum will continue whatever happens.”
While Europe may welcome a more willing interlocutor in a Harris presidency, the best preparation is to put the European digital house in order by implementing existing technology laws and crystallizing economic security and green technology agendas. A coherent technology strategy will make a stronger ally for a Harris administration or a partner more able to find new entry points and shoulder more responsibility for constructive transatlantic relations on technology with a Trump administration.