In 2023, the large language model GPT-4 passed the Uniform Bar Examination, scoring in the 90th percentile of real-life test takers.[1] From demonstrating legal expertise to crafting convincing deep-fakes, the capabilities of artificial intelligence are exponentially skyrocketing beyond human intelligence. Artificial intelligence is advancing at a pace that not only challenges traditional legal frameworks but also risks entrenching existing societal inequities and reinforcing monopolistic power structures. While harboring unparalleled potential for positive innovation, the rapid evolution of this technology also carries significant risks—specifically, the corruption by unchecked corporate interests and discriminatory algorithms.
While President Biden’s administration approached AI regulation with a balance between innovation and oversight, the Trump administration has signaled a stark departure from this model. President Trump’s executive order on AI, emphasizing deregulation and American leadership in technological innovation, prioritizes acceleration over accountability. But as an international joint statement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) asserted, “given the speed and dynamism of AI developments…we are committed [to] address any such risks before they become entrenched or irreversible harms.”[2] Contextualized by Trump’s larger attack on DEI, his deregulatory approach to AI risks the unmitigated spread of identity bias in governmental and private spheres. Irresponsible governmental use of AI could violate the Equal Protection Clause under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments through inadvertent algorithmic discrimination; already, the Trump administration has been accused of using ChatGPT to generate questionable tariff formulas.[3] The more localized integration of AI into business practices risks violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discriminatory practices in businesses, employment, public facilities, schools, and more.[4] Moreover, Trump’s overfocus on American “global AI dominance” and revocation of Biden’s orders on maintaining a “fair, open, and competitive ecosystem and marketplace for AI” may implicitly risk violating the Sherman Antitrust Act by encouraging nationalist technological monopolization.[5],[6] Thus, enforcing antitrust and anti-discrimination law will be crucial to ensure American AI policy respects constitutional and legal precedents, while also protecting the democratic rights of citizens nationwide.
Policy Background
From 2023 to 2025, President Biden signed three executive orders outlining the United States’ federal approach to AI regulation, focusing respectively on high-level responsibility, advancing U.S. leadership in AI infrastructure, and promoting the development of cybersecurity.[7] He pioneered a philosophy emphasizing both innovation and security, embodying how authentic technological leadership does not only come from unfettered development, but also from alignment to democratic values and human rights.
The Trump administration’s recent rescinding of Biden’s foundational AI executive orders, however, suggests a dangerous pivot. Rather than viewing innovation and regulation as mutually reinforcing, Trump’s approach frames them as opposing forces.[8] This false dichotomy risks stripping the United States of the very guardrails needed to manage the existential and ethical risks of AI: in “[revoking] certain existing AI policies and directives that act as barriers to American AI innovation,” it also revokes the necessary democratic tenets to ensure the safety of a society under AI. On the federal level, especially with the increasing consolidation of executive power, Congress will likely only regulate localized AI issues, leaving AI unregulated on the federal scale, which risks spiraling into blatant violations of civil rights statutes and even antitrust law.
The risks posed by misaligned AI—systems whose outputs and objectives diverge from human values—magnify under insufficient equity-based governance, leading to potential violations of both the Equal Protection Clause in government AI usage and civil rights statutes like the Civil Rights Act in private jurisdictions.[9] AI systems, though built by humans, can evolve in ways that are opaque and unpredictable, especially when trained on biased data without accountability mechanisms. Without regulation of AI training, computational power, and implementation, these systems have already exacerbated unconstitutional and discriminatory social constructs—and are likely to continue doing so. Under President Trump’s administration, which has systematically rolled back DEI-based hiring practices and other equity-centered safeguards, the danger of AI systems amplifying racial, gender, and economic bias becomes even more concerning. Anti-discrimination laws thus become especially critical.
Moreover, federal and state governments alike have recognized the growing necessity of maintaining fair competition in the rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 set a seminal legal precedent for protecting fair competition.[10] In line with the Sherman Act, unchecked corporate consolidation poses a threat to innovation, consumer choice, and democratic accountability in all sectors, including AI. In July 2024, the FTC, DOJ, and international antitrust enforcers affirmed their commitment to protecting competition in AI, signaling the importance of preventing monopolistic behavior regarding this skyrocketing technology. Many statewide legislators have passed bills requiring watermarks, disclaimers, and other forms of identification to delineate AI from human-generated material; for instance, California’s Health Care Services Bill ordains AI-generated patient communications regarding clinical services to include a clear AI disclaimer.[11] Meanwhile, current copyright law has generally upheld the “human authorship” standard, denying protection to AI-generated content—yet copyright has become an outsized focus of legislative debates.[12] An overly narrow emphasis on intellectual property distracts from the more pressing need to enforce antitrust laws and computational power limits, which are essential to curbing illegal monopolistic control and ensuring AI develops in the public interest.
In sum, antitrust laws and anti-discrimination safeguards must be proactively addressed and regulated to ensure the responsible, constitutional, and legally sound use of this technology, especially under Trump.
Antitrust Enforcement in AI
Trump’s executive order posits that American AI must be developed free from “engineered social agendas,” yet that goal is incompatible without AI regulation that fundamentally promotes fair competition.[13] If the executive government truly wants to champion human-centered and practical technological development, it must ensure that no single body can dominate the field of AI at the expense of the public good—including the United States as a whole. Two federal agencies, the DOJ and the FTC, are already emphasizing the importance of challenging algorithm-driven collusion, exclusionary conduct, and monopolistic conduct in the AI space.
While the Trump administration and the FTC have recently cracked down on “Big Tech” through various lawsuits—including a ruling in April 2025 that Google illegally maintained a monopoly in online advertising—his overarching promise to deregulate the AI industry presents a long-term antitrust jeopardy that legal experts and investors alike recognize.[14] His deregulatory philosophy bares an unsustainable future, where companies engage in unregulated development of advanced AI models, collectively monopolizing the computational infrastructure required to train and deploy them. Without proper regulation coupled with an explicit regulatory philosophy, Trump’s promise of American industrial “dominance” threatens to perpetuate disruptive innovation, where corporate interests dictate the development of AI instead of social good.
From a policy standpoint, a strong antitrust strategy for AI should include several key provisions, as outlined in the DOJ and FTC joint statement.[15] First, regulators should consider imposing computational power thresholds to prevent a handful of firms from hoarding the infrastructure necessary for advanced model development. Second, the government should promote interoperability among AI systems, ensuring that smaller firms can build tools that interact with dominant platforms. Third, agencies must scrutinize partnerships that risk undermining healthy competition or co-opting open-source innovations. Fourth, fair use exceptions should be explored as a response to aggressive copyright claims used to block competition. Finally, public transparency requirements must be established to keep consumers informed about how AI systems operate and interact with personal data.
Combating Algorithmic Discrimination
In a striking contradiction, Trump’s executive order declares that AI systems must be free from ideological bias, while simultaneously rescinding Biden-era directives designed to address algorithmic discrimination. The elimination of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) standards from federal hiring and contracting policy further weakens safeguards against systemic bias, just as these issues become more urgent due to AI’s expanding influence.
AI systems often inherit and amplify biases embedded in training data. Without strict oversight, they can lead to discrimination in hiring, healthcare, law enforcement, and countless other domains. For example, a 2019 study revealed that a hospital’s AI-based triage system disproportionately under-prioritized Black patients, recommending less care for them despite equal or greater health needs.[16] This AI system discriminated on the basis of race, violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in entities that receive federal financial assistance, which includes most American hospitals.[17] Similarly, a 2024 study found that AI-based resume-screening software discriminated against female and minority applicants, favoring white male candidates even with equivalent qualifications.[18] This study exemplifies an AI-based violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which outlaws employment discrimination on the basis of characteristics like race or sex.[19]
While the current federal environment is not realistically conducive to explicitly enforcing such legislation, state-based initiatives offer a promising path forward. New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD), for instance, explicitly prohibits algorithmic discrimination, setting a model that other states can adopt.[20] The FTC has also already taken meaningful action, such as barring Rite Aid from deploying a facial recognition system that disproportionately targeted Black, Latinx, Asian, and female customers in identifying customers who are likely to shoplift.[21] To build on this momentum, policymakers must codify algorithmic fairness requirements into civil rights law and mandate impact assessments for AI systems deployed in sensitive domains. These policies must include strong enforcement mechanisms, independent audits, and clear channels for redress by individuals harmed by discriminatory AI systems—only then can America’s approach towards AI duly respect the constitutional and civil rights every citizen possesses. Otherwise, the Trump administration risks infringing upon the very foundation of equality that the American legal system is purportedly built upon.
Conclusion
The unsettling rhetoric of Trump’s executive order surrounding AI implies a long-term federal approach towards AI that risks undermining constitutional protections for equal rights, not to mention antitrust legal precedent necessary for maintaining healthy economic competition. To ensure the ensuing legal precedents do not continue down an unconstitutional and unsustainable path, policymakers must adopt a regulatory framework that prioritizes responsibility, equity, and human safety over unchecked innovation. To prevent AI from exacerbating inequality, spreading misinformation, or threatening security, legislators must focus on antitrust regulation and combating algorithmic discrimination in particular. While implementing these measures poses challenges, especially under a deregulatory administration, inaction risks a consequence far greater than the technological domain—straying from the foundations of equity that the American society and economy depend upon. State governments must step up in the face of federal retrenchment, while federal agencies like the FTC and DOJ continue rigorous antitrust enforcement.
The U.S. cannot afford to regulate AI in a piecemeal or politically reactive manner. A proactive and equity-centered approach is essential to ensure that this powerful technology strengthens democracy rather than undermines it.
[1] Pablo Arredondo, “GPT-4 Passes the Bar Exam: What That Means for Artificial Intelligence Tools in the Legal Profession,” Stanford Law School, April 19, 2023, https://law.stanford.edu/2023/04/19/gpt-4-passes-the-bar-exam-what-that-means-for-artificial-intelligence-tools-in-the-legal-industry/.
[2] “Joint Statement on Competition in Generative AI Foundation Models and AI Products,” Federal Trade Commission, accessed April 26, 2025, https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/ai-joint-statement.pdf.
[3] Theo Burman, “Did Trump Admin Use ChatGPT to Allocate Tariffs? What We Know,” Newsweek, April 4, 2025, https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-tariffs-chatgpt-2055203.
[4] “Civil Rights Act (1964),” National Archives and Records Administration, accessed July 14, 2025, https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/civil-rights-act.
[5] “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence,” The White House, January 23, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/removing-barriers-to-american-leadership-in-artificial-intelligence/.
[6] Executive Office of the President, “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence,” Federal Register, October 30, 2023, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/11/01/2023-24283/safe-secure-and-trustworthy-development-and-use-of-artificial-intelligence.
[7] David Kappos, Evan Norris, and Sasha Rosenthal-Larrea, “Early Trump AI Moves Come in a Complex Regulatory Landscape,” Bloomberg Law, February 20, 2025, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/early-trump-ai-moves-come-in-a-complex-regulatory-landscape.
[8] “Removing Barriers,” The White House.
[9] “Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights,” Constitution Annotated, accessed April 26, 2025, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/.
[10] “The Antitrust Laws,” Federal Trade Commission, March 4, 2022, https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws.
[11] “AB-3030 Health Care Services: Artificial Intelligence,” California Legislative Information, 2023, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB3030.
[12] United States Court of Appeals, “Thaler v. Perlmutter,” Thomson Reuters, March 18, 2025, https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/egpblokwqpq/AI%20COPYRIGHT%20LAWSUIT%20dccir.pdf.
[13] “Removing Barriers,” The White House.
[14] David McCabe, “What to Know about Trump’s Antitrust Efforts against Tech Giants,” The New York Times, April 13, 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/13/technology/trump-tech-antitrust-cases.html.
[15] “Joint Statement,” Federal Trade Commission.
[16] Ziad Obermeyer et al., “Dissecting Racial Bias in an Algorithm Used to Manage the Health of Populations,” Science366, no. 6464 (October 25, 2019): 447–53, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax2342.
[17] “Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” Civil Rights Division, March 24, 2025, https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/TitleVI.
[18] Leon Yin, Davey Alba, and Leonardo Nicoletti, “OpenAI GPT Sorts Resume Names with Racial Bias, Test Shows,” Bloomberg, accessed April 26, 2025, https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-openai-gpt-hiring-racial-discrimination/.
[19] “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, accessed April 26, 2025, https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964.
[20] NJ Division on Civil Rights and NJ Office of the Attorney General, “Guidance on Algorithmic Discrimination and the New Jersey …,” Official Site of the State of New Jersey, January 2025, https://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases25/2025-0108_DCR-Guidance-on-Algorithmic-Discrimination.pdf.
[21] “Rite Aid Banned from Using AI Facial Recognition after FTC Says Retailer Deployed Technology without Reasonable Safeguards,” Federal Trade Commission, April 25, 2025, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/12/rite-aid-banned-using-ai-facial-recognition-after-ftc-says-retailer-deployed-technology-without.