WASHINGTON, DC, USA –– White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt answers questions from journalists on Jan. 28, 2025.
WASHINGTON — As the Trump administration increasingly welcomes vloggers and social media influencers into press briefings and the Oval Office, established outlets like the Associated Press find themselves excluded from the century-old press pool, sparking controversy about what "transparency" truly means.
Joshua Sukoff is a photojournalist from Long Island, New York. He is currently studying journalism at Northwestern University.
People working with AI technology.
In the rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence, policymakers face a delicate balancing act: fostering innovation while addressing legitimate concerns about AI's potential impacts. Representative Michael Keaton’s proposed HB 1833, also known as the Spark Act, represents a refreshing approach to this challenge—one that Washington legislators would be right to pass and other states would be wise to consider.
As the AI Innovation and Law Fellow at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, I find the Spark Act particularly promising. By establishing a grant program through the Department of Commerce to promote innovative uses of AI, Washington's legislators have a chance to act on a fundamental truth: technological diffusion is essential to a dynamic economy, widespread access to opportunity, and the inspiration of future innovation.
The history of technological advancement in America reveals a consistent pattern. When new technologies remain concentrated in the hands of a few, their economic and social benefits remain similarly concentrated. On the other hand, when technological tools become widely available—as happened with personal computers in the 1980s or internet access in the 1990s on through today (though too many remain on the wrong side of the digital divide)—we witness explosive growth in unexpected innovations and broader economic participation.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
HB 1833 wisely prioritizes several key elements that deserve particular commendation. The bill's emphasis on ethical AI use, risk analysis, small business participation, and statewide impact reflects a nuanced understanding of how to foster responsible innovation. By requiring applicants to share their technology with the state and demonstrate a clear public benefit, the program ensures that taxpayer investments yield broader societal returns.
The involvement of Washington's AI task force in identifying state priorities further strengthens the approach. This collaborative model between government, industry, and presumably academia creates a framework for ongoing dialogue about AI development—a far more productive approach than imposing rigid restrictions based on speculative concerns.
While regulatory frameworks for AI are necessary and inevitable, premature or excessive regulation risks several negative consequences. First, burdensome compliance costs disproportionately impact startups and smaller labs, potentially cementing the dominance of tech giants who can easily absorb these expenses. This would ironically undermine the competitive marketplace that effective regulation aims to protect.
Second, regulatory approaches that begin from a place of suspicion rather than a balanced assessment may perpetuate unfounded negative perceptions of AI. Public discourse already tends toward dystopian narratives that overshadow AI's transformative potential in healthcare, environmental protection, education, and accessibility. Policy should be informed by a complete picture—acknowledging risks while recognizing benefits.
Washington's approach appears to recognize what history has repeatedly demonstrated: innovation rarely follows predictable paths. The personal computer, the internet, and smartphones all produced applications and implications that their early developers could never have anticipated. By creating space for experimentation while establishing guardrails around ethical use and risk assessment, the Spark Act creates a framework for responsible innovation.
Other states considering AI policy would do well to study Washington's example. Rather than racing to implement restrictive regulations that may quickly become obsolete or counterproductive, states can establish programs that simultaneously promote innovation while gathering the practical experience necessary to inform more targeted regulation where truly needed.
The technological transformation unfolding before us holds tremendous promise for addressing long-standing societal challenges—but only if we resist the urge to stifle it before it has the chance to develop. Washington's legislators deserve recognition for charting a path that neither ignores legitimate concerns nor sacrifices the potential benefits of AI advancement.
In the coming years, the states that thrive economically will likely be those that find this balance—creating frameworks that promote responsible AI innovation while ensuring its benefits are widely shared. The Spark Act represents a promising step in that direction, one that merits both our attention and our support. The Senate should follow the House's lead in passing this important piece of legislation.
Kevin Frazier is an AI Innovation and Law Fellow at Texas Law and Author of the Appleseed AI substack.
TikTok icon on a phone.
You know things aren’t going well in the negotiations for the U.S. operations of TikTok when President Trump has to bribe the Chinese government with billions in tariff relief.
But that’s exactly what was reported out of the White House. President Trump is willing to give the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) billions in tariff relief if they pressured TikTok to sell its U.S. operations before the April 5th deadline.
What this indicates—ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok, of its own volition has no desire to sell its U.S. operations.
The question: Can Donald Trump bribe the CCP into forcing ByteDance to sell?
It is worth stated: President Trump’s gambit has merit. Any company doing business in China, especially one based in China, does so under the oversight of the CCP. So, theoretically Trump’s tariff relief could sway the CCP to act on his behalf as his advocate with ByteDance ownership.
The downside: Donald Trump had to sweeten the pot considerably to get a deal done.
It should tell everyone ByteDance ownership’s doesn’t intend to sell its U.S. TikTok operations. Only under extreme duress (threats of retribution) by the CCP is any deal possible. But, even then it’s a crap shoot.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The same fundamental conditions exist as before.
ByteDance is a global business. What’s more, its business model is predicated on the success of its TikTok product line and that product line’s success is directly tied to TikTok’s algorithm.
Ultimately, it’s all about TikTok’s algorithm.
At stake for ByteDance, if they sell their U.S. operations in TikTok, is opening the door to competition to their entire global enterprise. It’s a bad deal for ByteDance.
After all, Intellectual Property (IP) is the lifeblood of every technology company. ByteDance’s TikTok is no different. It’s why one would expect ByteDance to do everything in its power to protect its IP, its algorithm, even if they have to stand up to the CCP.
Still, one can’t under estimate the influence of the CCP.
It’s been reported, the CCP has frozen all state business with CK-Hutchison Holdings after the Hong Kong based conglomerate agreed to sell it majority held stake in the two ports bordering the Panama Canal to U.S. based BlackRock.
Purportedly, the CCP was not happy with the deal and has engaged in retaliatory actions against CK-Hutchison Holdings.
President Trump’s tariff gambit is likely seeking to take advantage of the CCP’s willingness to pressure companies into making business decisions that benefit China.
With the April 5th deadline fast approaching—we will know shortly if President Trump’s gambit pays off.
If it does it came at a steep price.
Dan Butterfield is the author of 11 E-books written under Occam’s Razor by Dan Butterfield. A list of publications: “Cultural Revolution,” “Prosecutorial Misconduct,” “Benghazi—The Cover-Up,” “The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming,” “Treason,” “11 Days,” “First Premise,” “GOP’s Power Grab,” “Guilty,” “Comey’s Deceit,” and “False Narratives.”
Students studying robotics.
In 2018, Economist Raj Chetty and his colleagues revealed a sobering truth: talent is everywhere, but opportunity is not. Their research on "Lost Einsteins" demonstrated that countless young Americans with the potential to be great inventors never get the chance to develop their skills simply because they lack exposure to innovation and mentorship. The data was clear: if a child grows up in an area with a high concentration of inventors, they are far more likely to become one themselves. But for too many, particularly those in rural and lower-income communities, the door to innovation remains closed. Failure to find those “Lost Einsteins” has deprived us all of a better future. Chetty forecasted that "if women, minorities, and children from low-income families were to invent at the same rate as white men from high-income (top 20%) families, the rate of innovation in America would quadruple." That’s a more prosperous, dynamic America.
The introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) carries the promise of realizing that brighter future if we learn from our prior mistakes. A lack of broad exposure among our youth to AI and the individuals shaping its development threatens to leave behind an entire generation of would-be entrepreneurs, scholars, and thought leaders. We risk creating "Lost Sams"—referring to OpenAI's Sam Altman as a stand-in for AI innovators—and "Missing Fei-Feis"—a nod to Stanford AI researcher Fei-Fei Li. Without urgent action, we will reinforce the existing gaps in AI leadership, limiting who gets to shape the future of this transformative technology.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
To bridge this divide, we need a grassroots solution: AI Guides. These guides should be trusted figures within their communities—teachers, local entrepreneurs, librarians, and civic leaders—who are trained to introduce AI concepts in an accessible and engaging way. They must not only be knowledgeable about AI but also be representative of the communities they serve. Chetty’s research indicated that exposure to innovation had a larger impact on students when it involved a young person learning from someone who shared their background. If AI remains a field dominated by those from elite institutions and urban tech hubs, we will continue to miss out on the perspectives and innovations that could emerge from diverse backgrounds.
AI Guides can serve as the crucial link between communities and the AI revolution. They can run after-school programs, host workshops in community centers, and partner with local businesses to demonstrate real-world AI applications. By working with startups, big tech companies, and public universities, these programs can provide hands-on exposure to AI tools and career paths that young people might never have considered.
Why Local Action is Critical
Waiting for federal action on this front is a losing bet. While Washington debates AI regulations and corporate leaders focus on AI’s role in competition and security, communities must take the initiative. The disparities in AI adoption are stark. According to a study from the MIT Sloan School of Management, AI adoption is concentrated in high-income, urban areas, leaving rural and economically disadvantaged communities far behind. Similarly, research from Deloitte shows that trust plays a significant role in AI adoption, particularly among women. Building that trust in new technology requires learning opportunities in comfortable, familiar settings, not just top-down initiatives.
Consider the success of community-driven AI initiatives abroad. Estonia, for example, has launched an ambitious program to integrate AI education into high schools, ensuring students graduate with foundational AI literacy. The United States, in contrast, has no national strategy for ensuring AI exposure for young people beyond select STEM programs that often fail to reach the most underserved populations.
But this is not just an education issue—it’s an economic one. Studies from Harvard Business School show that women are already avoiding AI tools in the workplace, which could have long-term career consequences. Meanwhile, research from the National CIO Review highlights that younger generations are more likely to adopt AI, but that doesn’t mean they are receiving structured guidance on how to use it effectively. If we don’t intervene now, we risk deepening existing inequities in AI participation and leadership.
What AI Guide Programs Could Look Like
The AI Guide model can be easily adapted to different community needs. A few possibilities include:
These programs don’t require massive federal investment. They require committed local leaders, support from tech companies willing to provide training materials, and partnerships with public universities.
A Call to Action
We have the talent. What we need is exposure. AI Guides could be the key to ensuring that the next generation of AI innovators doesn’t come solely from Silicon Valley but from every corner of the country. Every town has the potential to produce its own AI pioneers but only if we provide young people with the mentorship and opportunities they need.
If we fail to act, we will look back in twenty years and see yet another generation of “Lost Sams” and “Missing Fei-Feis.” But if we rise to the challenge, we can ensure that AI’s future is shaped by a truly diverse and representative group of thinkers, creators, and leaders. It’s time to build the bridges that will connect every young mind to the possibilities AI has to offer.
Two young students engaging in STEM studies.
As the Department of Education faces rounds of layoffs and threats of dissolution, prompted by the Department of Government Efficiency( DOGE), it is urgent to rethink and rededicate efforts to strengthen, broaden, and enhance STEM education from early childhood through post-secondary programs.
In order to realize the promise of an AI-driven future, technology and education leaders must address the persistent gaps between supply and demand for all highly skilled technical workers in the U.S.
This follows the recent activity of Elon Musk announcing the launch of the latest version of his company xAI's Grok model, South Korea banning downloads of Deep Seek, and President Donald Trump's promise of the $500 billion Stargate Project to create thousands of U.S. jobs. The urgent importance of OpenAI for this country is undeniable.
While some experts focus on the potential human job losses associated with the overall integration of AI tools, it is rewarding to see that the promise of Stargate and more recognizes that people will be the engine of the new economy. To do so, however, it is urgent to build the human infrastructure necessary to support this future work.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a projected job growth in the U.S. for information security analysts of 33 percent from 2023 to 2033, with nearly 181,000 jobs in this field in 2023. In 2024, there were reportedly 457,433 openings “requesting cybersecurity-related skills,” CyberSeek reports, with 83 qualified workers for every 100 jobs. These job numbers are indicative of the larger tech workforce.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
During his first term, Trump established the Presidential Cybersecurity Education Award in 2019 under his Executive Order on America’s Cybersecurity Workforce. The U.S. Department of Education administers this award that honors the work of primary and secondary educators who are preparing students to effectively navigate a cyber-enabled world.
Even as the administration talks of dismantling and distributing federal education dollars under the Department of Education to state houses, it is necessary to maintain a unified standard for STEM education. American competitiveness requires that all students who will comprise the workforce and will lead the nation forward have the strategic skills and competency to innovate in the future. It is not sufficient to simply leave the future to chance.
Rather, the DOE needs to remain to establish the framework for the national priority of digital sciences and tech advancement by implementing a unified message and guidance on AI to make cybersecurity and all technology a national priority.
Federal and state policymakers, educators, advocates, and tech leaders must guard against the propensity for individual states to set different standards that may unduly disadvantage some students. STEM education from primary through higher education must have national policies to make sure there is a level of consistency across states.
In 2023, The White House came out with the National Cyber Workforce & Education Strategy, outlining objectives, steps, and outcomes for resources, training, recruiting, retention, and advancement of the U.S. cyber economy. Updated last year, the strategy outlines the need for lifelong investment in cyber skills, leading to a citizenry equipped with digital literacy and computational skills. This is the ideal approach and needs to be enforced.
Workforce developers must also take full advantage of programs to upskill and reskill existing employees as they leverage internal labor markets to fulfill workforce needs.
Recent workforce studies point to a lack of supply. However, some experts question the nature of the need. There is an oversupply for some roles, an undersupply of others, and a disconnect between the expectations of employers and candidates. Employers question if the talent pool is weak or if they are seeking over-credentialed candidates. This may be unrealistic so that new employees can’t easily fulfill their roles.
The barriers to a robust talent pool for a competent cybersecurity workforce include insufficient resources in education from primary to secondary to higher education, potential restrictions on H-1B visas, and new policies on diverse candidate hiring.
Cybersecurity is a rapidly blooming field with the global market valued at $190.4 billion and expected to grow to $248.5 billion in 2028, research shows. Despite decades of work to produce a workforce of sufficient quality and quantity, our own research shows that positions continue to be unfilled.
To be successful in the evolving cybersecurity workforce—and the entire evolving tech workforce—individuals need to be able to create arguments, do research, analyze data, experiment, think critically, and employ scientific reasoning so that they will adapt successfully with the skills they need.
An innovative and creative future tech workforce depends on a community of critical thinkers with varying points of view, experiences, backgrounds, and voices. When there is an assault on sources of expertise and intellectual knowledge due to certain identities of race, gender, or ability, the value assigned to individuals becomes less about what they know and more about who they represent.
Serving as executive director of the Shahal M. Khan Cyber and Economic Security Institute at American University, I directly see the need for the responsibility of training the future tech workforce with a fair and just path of entry, growth, and advancement. This mission goes beyond politics and transcends the term limits of any administration.
The U.S. is certainly among the top global leaders in the practice of cybersecurity and digital innovation in terms of education, policy development, and implementation. America is expected to generate the most revenue globally in cybersecurity by the end of 2025, with a sum of $88.25 billion.
The projected tech job growth in the U.S. is from six million jobs in 2024 to 7.1 million jobs in 2034, according to the Computing Technology Industry Association's 2024 State of the Tech Workforce.
With new projects emerging, the possibilities seem limitless. The time to educate for the future is now.
Diana l. Burley, PhD, is Vice Provost for Research and Innovation, Professor of Public Administration and Executive Director, Khan Institute for Cyber and Economic Security at American University.
