Trump’s AI Plan Under Fire from Experts, Federal Workers & Allies!

The Trump administration’s swift embrace of artificial intelligence (AI) across federal agencies has sparked concern among government employees, historians, and international partners.

As the administration pushes to deregulate the AI sector and deploy generative tools at scale, critics warn of diminished oversight, institutional confusion, and the erasure of historically important content.

GSA Employees Confront Leadership Over Job Cuts and AI Focus

The General Services Administration (GSA), a critical agency responsible for procurement and federal operations, is at the center of rising internal tensions introduced by the Trump-appointed leadership.

At an all-hands meeting led by Acting Administrator Stephen Ehikian, federal employees voiced frustration about job losses, software restrictions, and the prioritization of AI projects over pressing workplace issues.

The meeting, attended by thousands online and in person, featured a demonstration of “GSAi,” an internal chatbot designed to assist with routine tasks such as drafting emails.

However, employees pushed back, demanding clarity on workforce reductions and software limitations that have hindered day-to-day functions.

Since the start of 2025, over 1,800 GSA employees have reportedly accepted deferred resignation offers, citing operational disruptions and lack of transparency.

Leadership has implemented strict return-to-office policies and capped federal purchase card spending at $1, raising further logistical challenges for teams managing procurement and software licensing.

The agency’s focus on in-house AI development, instead of sourcing proven third-party solutions, has drawn skepticism.

The Technology Transformation Services team, led by former Tesla engineer Thomas Shedd, has emphasized the use of AI to streamline operations.

This move is aligned with the agenda of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an internal group reportedly backed by Elon Musk’s allies.

While agency officials promoted cost savings and automation as signs of progress, internal chat logs and staff commentary suggest deep dissatisfaction.

Many workers questioned the effectiveness of the AI tools, the rationale behind office mandates, and the long-term consequences of eliminating critical software like Adobe Pro.

AI-Induced Content Purge at the Pentagon Raises Alarms

In a separate incident, the Pentagon faced criticism after the abrupt removal of multiple web pages commemorating minority veterans.

Pages honoring Jackie Robinson’s WWII service and Army Maj. Gen. Charles Calvin Rogers, a Black Medal of Honor recipient, were taken down as part of a broader mandate to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) content from Department of Defense platforms.

A Pentagon spokesperson confirmed that the content was removed due to automated AI processes implemented to meet compliance deadlines following an executive order issued by President Trump.

Despite the restoration of the deleted content, the incident has drawn concern from historians and veterans’ groups.

Critics argue that conflating historical recordkeeping with DEI undermines the integrity of public memory and disproportionately affects underrepresented groups.

The purge was linked to new directives from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who ordered a review of all digital content promoting cultural awareness, and dismissed several military leaders viewed as overly focused on diversity initiatives.

Tech Industry Applauds AI Deregulation Push

Amid domestic controversy, the administration’s AI policy direction has found strong support among major U.S. technology firms.

Companies such as OpenAI, Meta, and Google have praised the White House for prioritizing innovation and removing regulatory hurdles that, in their view, hampered progress under the Biden administration.

The administration has solicited input from the private sector to inform a forthcoming national AI action plan, expected this summer.

Industry responses reveal a unified position: minimal government oversight is necessary to maintain U.S. dominance in AI, especially in the face of rapid advancements in China.

OpenAI cited China’s development of low-cost, high-performance AI models as a national security concern and urged the federal government to maintain broad “fair use” policies for training data.

Meta advocated for the open-sourcing of models like its LLaMA series, presenting it as a competitive imperative against closed AI systems developed by geopolitical rivals.

CEO Mark Zuckerberg has reportedly pushed for retaliatory measures, including tariffs, against European regulators seen as impeding U.S. tech interests.

Google focused on the infrastructural demands of large-scale AI deployment, highlighting the need for energy investment and opposing state-level regulations that could introduce legal fragmentation within the U.S. market.

Global Implications: EU Rethinks Regulatory Strategy

The Trump administration’s regulatory rollback has also had ripple effects abroad.

European officials who once championed the EU AI Act—a landmark piece of legislation aimed at curbing the risks of AI misuse—are now shifting their tone.

Faced with mounting pressure to stay competitive, policymakers are rebranding their AI strategies to prioritize innovation over enforcement.

Karen Silverman, CEO of AI advisory firm Cantellus Group, added that the U.S. appears to have abandoned any unified regulatory philosophy.

This global recalibration underscores the influence of U.S. policy decisions in shaping AI governance worldwide.

However, experts warn that long-term neglect of oversight could lead to serious ethical and societal consequences.

For more news and trends, visit AI News on our website.