Join Next Level Mediation 4-part Webinar Series beginning September 15, 2025 to master AI-augmented mediation using decision science, risk analysis, visualization and Game Theory!
The “White House AI Action Plan Summary” outlines a comprehensive U.S. strategy to solidify American leadership in artificial intelligence through over 90 federal actions. Introduced in July 2025, the plan focuses on accelerating AI innovation, building robust AI infrastructure, and leading international AI diplomacy and security. It emphasizes deregulation to foster rapid development while also addressing concerns like safeguarding free speech in AI models and combating deepfake disinformation within the legal system. The strategy aims to “win the AI race” globally by promoting open innovation, exporting U.S. AI technology to allies, and restricting adversaries’ access to critical AI technologies. For legal professionals, the plan signifies a shift towards more disputes being resolved through litigation and arbitration due to fewer prescriptive regulations, an evolution in evidence standards for AI-generated content, and increased complexity in cross-border and trade disputes related to AI.
Listen to the AI Podcast of this Article:
Introduction to Article
America’s AI Action Plan (July 2025) is a comprehensive White House strategy outlining over 90 federal actions to secure U.S. leadership in artificial intelligence (AI) across three pillars: (I) Accelerating AI Innovation, (II) Building AI Infrastructure, and (III) Leading in International AI Diplomacy and Security. This initiative, introduced under President Trump’s administration, prioritizes rapid AI development and deployment by removing regulatory barriers, promoting open innovation, and exporting U.S. AI technology to allies. At the same time, it emphasizes safeguarding American values such as free expression, in advanced AI systems and guarding against malicious uses like deepfake disinformation.
For mediators, arbitrators, and attorneys, the AI Action Plan creates significant changes in the legal and ADR landscape. A strong position to deregulate means fewer prescriptive rules upfront, shifting greater responsibility to legal and compliance professionals to manage risks and resolve disputes when AI deployments go awry (they eventually will). The plan’s call to “uphold free speech” in AI models and avoid “Orwellian” uses of AI creates a new standard for algorithmic neutrality in government procurement, which could influence litigation over AI bias and content moderation. Also, measures to “combat synthetic media in the legal system” highlight the growing challenge of AI-generated evidence (deepfakes) in courts. Internationally, tighter export controls and an “AI Alliance” strategy will complicate cross-border data and technology flows, requiring careful navigation of trade laws, privacy protection and compliance regimes.
The Plan
America’s AI Action Plan”is a 28-page federal strategy document that charts a course for U.S. AI policy in the near term. Unveiled on July 23, 2025, under Executive Order 14179 (Removing Barriers to American Leadership in AI), the plan is explicitly framed as an effort to “win the AI race” against global competitors. It is organized around three strategic pillars and is underpinned by foundational principles that reflect the administration’s priorities:
Pillar I – Accelerate AI Innovation:Pillar I – Accelerate AI Innovation (July 2025) – America’s AI Action Plan emphasizes unleashing innovation while safeguarding core values, with broad implications for law, dispute resolution, and policy:
Protecting AI Intellectual Property and Security: Pillar I stresses guarding American AI innovations against espionage, cyberattacks, and other threats, striking a balance between open innovation and national security. It calls for public-private collaboration – e.g. DHS, DOD and Commerce partnering with top AI companies in order to actively defend critical AI IP and systems from malicious actors. This focus on security means companies must bolster compliance with cybersecurity and export control laws, and it foreshadows that disputes involving theft of AI trade secrets or breaches may invoke these new cooperative safeguards in their resolution.
Streamlining AI Regulations: The plan prioritizes removing bureaucratic obstacles to AI development, including removing rules that were part of a more cautious and heavy-handed approach to regulation. It also mandates reviewing prior enforcement (e.g. FTC investigations) to ensure they do not “advance theories of liability” that unduly burden AI innovation, fostering a predictable legal environment for AI businesses and fewer regulatory conflicts.
Safeguarding Free Speech in AI: Pillar I ensures that frontier AI systems are built with freedom of speech and truth in mind, so government policy does not impose ideological bias or censorship on these technologies. For example, federal procurement rules will require that AI models be objective and free from top-down ideological bias, aligning AI governance with First Amendment values and informing how mediators/arbitrators handle disputes over AI-driven content moderation.
Promoting Open-Source AI Innovation: The plan encourages “open-source” and “open-weight” AI models, which make model code and weights freely available to promote use and modification by anyone. This open-model approach should foster innovation (startups and researchers can build on existing AI freely) and improve transparency, but it also raises additional considerations for intellectual property and security that legal practitioners must navigate in collaborative AI projects.
Accelerating AI Adoption in Industry: This is supposed to address slow AI update because of distrust, complex rules, and vague governance. The plan supports regulatory sandboxes and shared standards to cultivate a dynamic “try-first” culture for AI in sectors like healthcare and finance. By enabling controlled experiments with various US agencies like the FDA, this initiative reduces compliance uncertainty and helps companies and counsel manage risk, potentially averting disputes as organizations confidently integrate AI.
Fostering Next-Generation AI Manufacturing: The strategy calls for investing in domestic capacity to build AI-enabled technologies (autonomous drones, self-driving cars, robotics, etc.), ensuring the U.S. and allies lead in manufacturing these emerging tools.
Preparing the Workforce for AI Transformation: Emphasizing a “worker-first AI agenda,” Pillar I contains major initiatives in AI education, upskilling, and retraining so that American workers can thrive alongside AI advancements. This also includes integrating AI skills into curricula and tax guidance allowing employer-funded AI training to be tax free for employees. These are measures that employment lawyers and mediators may harness to help mitigate job displacement conflicts and ensure AI’s economic benefits are widely shared.
Building World-Class AI-Ready Datasets: Recognizing data as a strategic asset, the plan seeks to create the world’s largest high-quality scientific datasets for AI while rigorously protecting privacy, civil liberties, and confidentiality. For example, agencies are directed to set data quality standards and break down silos by expanding secure access to federal data (consistent with the Confidential Information Protection Act). While this will fuel AI research and evidence-based innovation, the creation of adoptable standards is difficult and a very long process.
Advancing Fundamental AI Research: The Action Plan prioritizes targeted investments in cutting-edge AI R&D to drive new breakthroughs (analogous to how generative AI was a paradigm shift) and to keep the U.S. at the forefront of scientific discovery. This commitment, which will be reflected in a forthcoming National AI R&D Strategic Plan, signals to policymakers and attorneys that sustaining AI leadership may involve supportive regulatory frameworks and attention to intellectual property arising from federally funded research.
Enhancing AI Safety and Interpretability: Acknowledging that frontier AI systems can be “black boxes” with unpredictable outputs, Pillar I invests in research on AI interpretability, control mechanisms, and robustness to make AI more explainable and trustworthy. Notably, a DARPA-led program will pursue breakthroughs in these areas which will be a key development crucial for liability and governance, regarding AI use in high-stakes settings like healthcare and defense.
Establishing an AI Evaluation Ecosystem: The plan promotes rigorous evaluation of AI systems as a tool for accountability, especially in regulated industries. It supports the development of benchmarks and test beds to assess AI performance, reliability, and legal compliance. In practice, NIST is tasked with guiding agencies on evaluating AI for their missions and law compliance, which will standardize how AI is measured. This common evaluation framework will inform regulators, courts, and arbitrators in objectively assessing AI systems when questions of safety or efficacy arise.
Modernizing Government with AI: To lead by example, the federal government will accelerate its own AI adoption by coordinating agency efforts and simplifying procurement of AI tools that meet unified standards. A new Chief AI Officers Council will drive interagency collaboration, and a GSA-run “AI procurement toolbox” will let agencies deploy pre-vetted AI solutions compliant with privacy and transparency laws. Any new procurement of AI systems will have to be vetted for compliance to new unified standards.
Rapid AI Integration in Defense: The plan directs the Department of Defense to aggressively incorporate AI across its operations to maintain U.S. military preeminence, while keeping systems secure and reliable. DOD-specific actions include identifying essential AI skill sets and creating an AI & Autonomous Systems “virtual proving ground” for testing new capabilities. The DOD will also secure priority access to commercial computing power during national emergencies.
Combating AI Deepfakes in the Legal System: The plan highlights the rising risk of AI-generated deepfakes (fake audio, video, images) being used to mislead courts and undermine justice, noting that additional action is needed beyond existing laws like the recent TAKE IT DOWN Act. To preserve evidentiary integrity, it proposes developing NIST forensic guidelines and pushing for new evidence standards (such as a deepfake authentication rule akin to proposed Rule 901(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence). These measures will equip courts, law enforcement, and arbitrators with tools to verify digital evidence, ensuring that AI forgeries do not erode trust in legal proceedings or dispute resolution.
Pillar II – Build American AI Infrastructure: Invest in the physical, digital, and workforce infrastructure needed for AI, from data centers and chips to cybersecurity, while reducing barriers to rapid build-out.
Streamline Permitting: Expedite approvals for data centers, semiconductor fabs, and energy projects by reducing NEPA and environmental review burdens.
Upgrade the Power Grid: Modernize and expand the electric grid to meet massive AI energy demands, with emphasis on nuclear, geothermal, and fusion energy sources.
Revitalize Semiconductor Manufacturing: Remove unnecessary policy requirements from CHIPS-funded projects and accelerate domestic chip production to secure supply chains.
High-Security Data Centers: Establish new technical standards for military- and intelligence-grade data centers to protect sensitive AI workloads.
Train Skilled Workforce: Create national programs for training technicians, engineers, and apprentices to build and maintain AI infrastructure.
Bolster Cybersecurity: Launch an AI Information Sharing and Analysis Center (AI-ISAC) and issue DHS guidance to address AI-specific vulnerabilities.
Promote Secure-by-Design AI: Require that government and national security AI systems adopt resilient, adversary-resistant design principles.
Strengthen AI Incident Response: Integrate AI system failures into federal cybersecurity incident playbooks, ensuring rapid response to disruptions.
Pillar III – Lead in International AI Diplomacy and Security: Leverage U.S. influence to set global AI standards, support allies with American AI solutions, and restrict adversaries’ access to critical AI technologies.
Export American AI Globally: The plan commits to exporting U.S. AI hardware, software, and standards to allies and partners, creating a trusted ecosystem of American-led technologies. This strategy reduces reliance on adversary systems and strengthens U.S. influence in shaping how AI is adopted worldwide.
Counter Chinese Influence: U.S. diplomats will actively challenge authoritarian-leaning AI norms in global bodies like the UN, OECD, and ITU. The goal is to prevent surveillance-driven standards from becoming international defaults and instead promote innovation-friendly, democratic frameworks.
Tighten Export Controls: The government will enhance enforcement mechanisms to ensure advanced AI chips and computing resources do not end up in countries of concern. This includes leveraging location verification and intelligence collaboration to block illicit diversions of U.S. AI technology.
Close Semiconductor Loopholes: Current export controls cover major chip-making systems but not all subsystems or components. The plan seeks to expand restrictions to these overlooked elements, preventing adversaries from piecing together advanced semiconductor capabilities.
Align with Allies: The U.S. will form an “AI alliance” to synchronize export rules, technology safeguards, and research protections across friendly nations. Harmonized controls will make it harder for adversaries to bypass restrictions by sourcing components from less restrictive partners.
Key Issues for Legal and Dispute Resolution Professionals
Fewer Prescriptive Rules, More Disputes: With the federal government favoring deregulation, many AI-related harms will be addressed through lawsuits, arbitration, or negotiated settlements rather than regulatory enforcement. Professionals should prepare for increased reliance on tort, contract, and civil rights law to resolve AI disputes.
Evolving Standards of Evidence: Courts and agencies are beginning to require forensic benchmarks for deepfakes and clearer rules for authenticating AI-generated evidence. Litigators and neutrals must be ready to challenge or validate AI content and guide parties through disputes involving contested digital proof.
Patchwork Compliance Risks: Federal deregulatory moves coexist with emerging state-level AI laws, leaving businesses subject to overlapping obligations. Counsel and mediators will need to help parties navigate conflicts between state and federal expectations, often using higher standards as the safest path.
AI Infrastructure and Security Obligations: Rapid AI buildout will bring expedited approvals but also heightened scrutiny around cybersecurity and national security. Attorneys and arbitrators can expect disputes over supply-chain integrity, contract compliance, and liability for breaches involving AI infrastructure.
Cross-Border and Trade Disputes: New export controls and the creation of an “AI alliance” mean contracts and partnerships will be disrupted by shifting international rules. Arbitrators and mediators should anticipate more cross-border disputes where technology transfer, sanctions, or compliance with allied export laws are at issue.
Evidence-Based Governance on the Horizon: Scholars and policymakers are pressing for data-driven standards requiring documentation, testing, and audits of AI systems. Lawyers and neutrals should advise clients to adopt these practices now, as they will soon serve as both a shield in litigation and a framework in negotiations.
Professional Adaptation Required: The legal community must quickly build technical literacy in AI, cybersecurity, and data science. Those who invest in training and inter-disciplinary expertise will be positioned to credibly manage AI disputes and compliance challenges.
Trading Fast Innovation for Potential Longer-Term Consequences
In the longer term, the America’s AI Action Plan may yield both opportunities and risks by prioritizing speed over caution. On one hand, rapid innovation could cement U.S. technological leadership, generate new industries, and create jobs just like the space race drove decades of economic and scientific growth. On the other, by stripping back regulatory guardrails, the plan shifts much of the responsibility for safety, fairness, and accountability onto the courts, private companies, and the dispute resolution system. This could mean more disputes over bias, liability, and intellectual property as AI is deployed before clear rules are established, leaving mediators, arbitrators, and attorneys to resolve conflicts in uncharted legal territory.
The other long-term consequence is the potential erosion of trust and systemic risks if governance lags too far behind adoption. Without robust evidence-based safeguards, AI systems could propagate misinformation, deepen inequities, or introduce vulnerabilities into critical infrastructure. Internationally, aggressive export controls and the creation of an “AI alliance” could fracture global technology cooperation, raise the likelihood of trade conflicts and competing regulatory regimes. For the legal community, this means a future of greater complexity, more cross-border disputes, and heightened demand for professionals who can navigate both the promises and pitfalls of accelerated AI adoption.
Conclusion
The content of the plan is ambitious and reasonably coherent, but the real challenge lies in execution, timing, and coordination. The plan stacks dozens of initiatives across innovation, infrastructure, and international diplomacy, many of which have obvious interdependencies. For example, accelerating open-source AI development depends on simultaneously building secure computing infrastructure and ensuring supply chains for chips are stable.
From a dispute resolution perspective, this complexity suggests that mediators, arbitrators, and attorneys will often find themselves addressing gaps and conflicts created by uneven implementation. For instance, if one agency advances new AI evaluation standards while another lags in adopting them, companies may face contradictory requirements, leading to compliance disputes.
In short, while the policy vision is clear, the sequencing and synchronization across agencies, states, and global partners is “difficult at best”, and it is in those gaps where legal and mediation professionals will be called upon to step in and manage the consequences.
Join Next Level Mediation 4-part Webinar Series beginning September 15, 2025 to master AI-augmented mediation using decision science, risk analysis, visualization and Game Theory!
Robert Bergman with Next Level Mediation provides full mediation services - including proprietary and confidential Decision Science (DS) analysis that assists each party in understanding their true litigation priorities as aligned with their business objectives. Each party receives a one-time user license to access our exclusive DS Application Cloud. We… MORE
From the Blog of Phyllis G. Pollack.As I do not conduct arbitration hearings, I normally do not pay close attention to court decisions on the subject. But one issued on...
While premature to presume, there is cause to believe, or at least to hope, based on the model of his presidential campaign that the leadership style and governance of President-Elect...
In the distant past, greatest of the great nations, for example, China, Egypt, India, Greece have eventually declined. Rise and decline occur because of the transformation of the societal level...
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
