The United States invests billions in artificial intelligence research and development‚ semiconductor fabrication‚ and next-generation connectivity. Yet millions of Americans cannot consistently access the internet or afford the devices needed to submit an online application for social services or a job application․ This is not an oversight․ It is a policy choice that is costing the country dearly․
Connectivity is a floor, not a ceiling:
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021 allocated $65 billion for broadband expansion, which was the largest federal investment in U.S. history. It was necessary. But it is insufficient. Opportunities for minimal participation in the digital economy with higher physical access. There are four conditions for equitable digital inclusion: availability, adequacy, acceptability, and affordability; not merely a cable at the door. When the federal Affordable Connectivity Program lapsed and was slashed in May, 2024, it subsidized more than 23 million households. In a matter of weeks, 13% had already cut off home internet; another 12% said they would. Connectivity without long-term affordability guarantees is connectivity in name only. Such failure is due to access without usable skills.
Geography is destiny in the digital age:
The benefits of technology are not equally distributed. Most gains from innovation occur in large metropolitan areas with excellent universities, larger employers, and more developed infrastructure. There are many inequities in the distribution of technology. Most of the positive outcomes of innovation occur in places like urban areas that have top-tier universities, wealthy companies, and advanced infrastructure. Left-behind areas include rural regions and areas that have lost industry. Data show that in the U.S., rural residents continue to have slower broadband access even when accounting for individual differences. This was most evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, when connectivity became important for remote careers, healthcare, and remote learning and medical services.
This geographic divide is not just an equity issue; it is also an economic one. Digital employers do not gravitate to communities without well-established digital infrastructure, displaced workers retrain for the digital economy, and public services that residents need cannot be funded. The cycle is self-reinforcing. Even a national mapping of digital equity by county, looking at readiness, access, skills & outcomes, would at the very least make this issue readable to policymakers. What gets measured gets managed.
Skills are the new gatekeepers:
The case for broadband having been made enough has always been built on the broken foundation that access means capability. It does not. Digital skills go beyond just access to connectivity, which determines who is able to embrace new ways of working (remote work), access to telehealth, further education, and participation in AI-enabled services. Around 44% of workers will see their skills disrupted in five years, the World Economic Forum has noted. For the most vulnerable workers, it is precisely those with the weakest digital foundations who have little chance of riding that transition.
This is precisely what an analysis of 701 U.S. occupations shows: digital skill has a statistically significant protective effect on job displacement. AI workers with stronger competencies face lower wages and employment losses as automation penetration grows. The inverse is equally true. Thus, federal workforce policy should view digital upskilling not as an add-on to employment programs but as the base.
AI will amplify what policy ignores:
The aforementioned interests provide a view of the most divisive nature of artificial intelligence, which is already changing how Americans find work, receive medical care and treatment, access credit, and interact with public services. In each of these domains, algorithmic systems trained on biased-by-design data have the potential to reproduce and amplify existing forms of societal inequality. We have documented algorithmic failures in sectors such as health care, hiring, and credit scoring that lead to misdiagnoses, screening of non-diseased patients, or the denial of opportunities. Weaker digital footprints also yield less usable data, and systems trained on that absence reproduce it as a disadvantage.
On the other hand, workers with stronger digital skills can move into new, more valuable roles as AI reshapes occupational demand, whereas workers without those skills will be left competing for an ever-narrower slice of routine work. AI, without intentional policy action, will not reduce equity gaps – it will solidify them.
The window is narrowing:
The twenty-first-century digital infrastructure looks set to repeat the errors of the twentieth century- massive investment that largely feeds in, as before, into existing channels. The left-behind communities are not passive recipients of the technology disruption. These are the same communities that have endured decades of underinvestment.
America does not need to choose between innovation and equity. It has to stop acting like they are opposites. But a digitally inclusive economy can compete and thrive in a globalizing, technologically advancing world. The federal strategy must also treat access and skills as infrastructure, as essential to national competitiveness as any semiconductor facility. That takes a sustained national commitment: a framework, a way to measure success, and the political willpower to finance both. If such a construction is to take place, it needs to happen now — before the AI transition solidifies a two-tier economy that will take another generation to untangle.
Arafatur Rahaman is a Research Analyst at Southeast University and Founder and Executive Director of the ‘Center for Governance, Economy, and Environmental Studies (CGEES)’. His work focuses on political economy, governance, and development policy, with research spanning finance, migration, and digital transformation.
