Trump launches the 'AI Force': The end of the regulatory pause in the U.S.

A 180-degree turn in tech policy

The Trump administration has marked a milestone in global economic and technological policy by formalizing a confrontational stance against emerging artificial intelligence regulation. The creation of an 'AI Force' and the appointment of an 'AI czar,' as reported by Ars Technica, are not isolated measures, but the crystallization of a doctrine that prioritizes industrial supremacy over any precautionary framework. This move represents a sharp rejection of the global trend that, over the last three years, had sought a balance between innovation and safety, positioning the United States as the epicenter of unprecedented state-led technological accelerationism.

What is the 'AI Force' and why does it redefine the role of the State?

The 'AI Force' should not be understood as a regulatory body, but as an enforcement arm for deregulation. Historically, government agencies (such as the FDA in health or the FAA in aviation) have acted as safety filters. In contrast, this new government body has an explicit mandate to eliminate bureaucratic barriers, which the current administration views as unnecessary friction that hinders competitiveness. By labeling concerns about human control and existential risks as a 'hoax,' the White House is dismantling the 'Responsible AI' narrative that prevailed in previous years.

From a public management perspective, this is reminiscent of the aggressive deregulation policy of the 80s, but applied to a general-purpose technology (GPT) that is exponentially more complex. The 'AI Force' will presumably act as a fast track for startups and tech giants to deploy frontier models without undergoing external safety audits or extensive bias testing. It is a model of 'innovation through deployment,' where the market and the end-user become, de facto, the test subjects for systems that have not yet reached the technical maturity necessary to ensure their predictability.

Implications for the market, the SaaS sector, and security

The elimination of regulatory hurdles will generate immediate shockwaves in the SaaS ecosystem and critical infrastructure. The implications are multidimensional:

• Geopolitical competition: The administration justifies this shift as a national security necessity against China. The fear is that premature regulation in the U.S. will allow models developed under authoritarian regimes to gain an insurmountable technological lead. This inaugurates a software 'arms race' where the winner is the one who deploys the fastest, not the one who deploys the safest.
• Impact on the SaaS sector: Companies whose business model is based on generative AI will see their legal compliance costs drastically reduced. However, this also increases liability risk. In an environment without clear safety guidelines, the burden of responsibility for system errors will fall directly on companies, which could trigger a wave of litigation in the near future.
• Industrial polarization: The market will split between 'safety-first' companies, which try to maintain ethical standards out of reputation or conviction, and 'speed-first' companies, which will exploit the legal vacuum to scale without restrictions. This polarization will create a fragmented market where interoperability will become increasingly difficult.

Context: From fear to accelerationism as state policy

Historically, humanity has reacted to new technologies with periods of regulatory assimilation. After the 2008 financial crisis, strict controls were imposed; after the explosion of social media, privacy frameworks like the GDPR were attempted. The current stance of the Trump administration is a conscious rejection of this cycle. It aligns with 'effective accelerationism' (e/acc), a philosophy that posits that the only way to mitigate AI risks is through the fastest possible development of even more powerful systems.

Comparatively, this shift is more radical than the dismantling of net neutrality in 2017. While net neutrality affected data distribution, AI affects decision-making, creativity, and the cognitive infrastructure of society. By ignoring warnings from industry leaders about the potential loss of human control, the administration is betting on technological sovereignty based on computational brute force. This strategy is speculative: there is no empirical evidence that total deregulation accelerates innovation more effectively than a robust safety environment, but the impact on the trajectory of AI development over the next 24 months will undoubtedly be transformative.

The market must prepare for extreme volatility. With the disappearance of legal brakes, the speed of innovation will outpace the ability of companies to implement safety protocols, which will inevitably lead to systemic failures that the market will have to absorb without the backing of public regulatory infrastructure. We are entering an era where technological ethics will be a voluntary corporate choice rather than an obligation imposed by the State.