Chris Lehane, chief international affairs officer at OpenAI, believes the 2028 presidential election could be a defining moment for AI. And he wants politicians to start developing policies that address Americans’ concerns about technology, rather than simply paying lip service to anti-AI sentiment and backlash against data centers.
In a new essay, Lehane compares AI’s potential to reshape the economy to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. The New Deal was a series of federal programs and reforms in the 1930s that were enacted after industrialization and the Great Depression disrupted the old economic order. He observes that Americans today feel a similar fear of losing control over their economic future, and urges politicians to find a “compelling third path” through which people can share the benefits of AI. He has five policy priorities, ranging from worker protections and education to AI safety and data center development.
This essay was written on the heels of Democrats’ surprising victories in the midterm elections, in which they reversed control of Congress amid widespread voter dissatisfaction with the cost of living. Kate Brennan, head of AI and corporate power policy at the AI Now Institute, told TechCrunch that Lehane’s comments mark a notable shift from last year’s OpenAI policy agenda, which focused on accelerating AI development, reducing regulatory barriers and expanding infrastructure.
Unsurprisingly, many of Lehane’s proposals will encourage broader adoption of AI and support the infrastructure expansion that companies like OpenAI need to grow. The original New Deal established protections for workers and placed limits on the power of corporations. It’s less clear how Lehane’s vision will hold AI companies accountable for the economic disruption their technology may cause.
“To invoke the New Deal metaphor is to evoke the state’s ability to actually benefit its people,” Brennan said. “This was written by a private company trying to advocate for policy in its own interests. It’s ahistorical at best and harmful at worst.”
While AI was not a major issue in the midterm elections, opposition to data centers emerged as a major bipartisan concern in several midterm elections. And Lehane may be right that AI will become a bigger part of the conversation over the next two years.
Affordability is already shaping up as a key issue in the 2028 election as Americans grapple with inflation, tariffs, and rising costs of living. AI could become an increasingly large part of that discussion, as voters stress that data centers raise electricity prices, that AI replaces jobs, and that the economic benefits of technology flow only to a few wealthy companies.
Lehane acknowledges many of these concerns, but offers few concrete suggestions for preventing AI benefits from becoming concentrated. Instead, he primarily pitches AI as a path to greater prosperity for Americans who embrace it.
Let’s take a look at his tax proposals. He proposes incentives for workers to learn AI skills, easier access to capital for entrepreneurs, and new approaches to employee ownership and profit sharing. These are not the same as binding requirements to ensure that workers share in the wealth created by AI or that companies pay the costs of laying off workers.
“I was struck by how so much of this policy is for the future…it already assumes mass adoption of AI and that AI will benefit society, and we don’t see that yet,” Brennan said. “All of that is predicated on benefiting from the benefits of AI.”
Brennan said it makes more sense to consider changes to the corporate tax rate, tax incentives for hiring people rather than automating jobs, and ways to prevent companies from accumulating huge market power.
Lehane’s focus is on expanding the economic opportunities of AI, rather than limiting its potential harm, and that attitude extends to the data center as well. While he cited concerns about data centers, he emphasized the construction jobs and local tax revenue they could generate. He also warned that politicians who support a data center moratorium could jeopardize America’s lead against China, going so far as to compare their stance to the 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq war.
Lehane also puts child safety and education at the center of his proposed agenda, emphasizing the importance of age-appropriate protection and safety measures for AI companions for minors. He also warned against keeping AI out of the classroom, arguing that doing so could lead to inequalities between wealthy students and “kids in rural areas.” But while the claim that AI improves learning is taken for granted, the claim remains unproven and some critics say it deserves consideration over more funding and the personalized attention of human teachers.
Lehane also calls for enforceable AI safety standards, independent assessments, public oversight, and the ability to limit AI systems or shut them down using kill switches. However, recent research shows that OpenAI and other AI institutes have not published comprehensive plans for what to do if their models escape human control.
Brennan called these positions “disingenuous,” pointing to OpenAI’s history of opposing laws aimed at imposing such measures. For example, in 2024, OpenAI opposed California’s AI safety bill, SB 1047, which mandated catastrophic risk assessment and shutdown capabilities. OpenAI also sought to limit state regulation last year, arguing that states could hurt American innovation. The company recently changed some of its positions, saying it supports safety laws in several states and opening itself up to independent evaluators incorporated within the company.
Lehane also argues that humans need to remain in control of the resulting decisions made using AI, rather than leaving it entirely to machines. But in a society that increasingly requires humans to use AI in education, work, healthcare, and government, the question arises: What does human control actually look like?
Throughout his essay, Lehane positions AI as a technology that can restore agency and economic opportunity to Americans. But he links the success of the average American “middle class” to participation in the economy that is being shaped by companies like OpenAI. It is less clear whether his policies will meaningfully redistribute power or subtly entrench power.
TechCrunch reached out to OpenAI for more information about Lehane’s proposal and the company’s stance, but did not receive a response by the time of publication.
If you make a purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This does not affect editorial independence.
