IPI Policy Blog

The Trump administration has been very active in AI policy since he assumed office. Nearly a dozen Executive Orders have emanated from the White House, and on July 23^rd the President gave a speech introducing the administration’s 28-page “AI Action Plan.”

There’s a lot of good in the plan, and this post is not intended to be a detailed critique of the plan. A federal pre-emption of state AI regulation is an important feature, although the President can’t just declare it—that requires federal legislation. A provision banning state AI regulation was in the penultimate version of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA) but was stricken at the last minute at the request of Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn.

Copyright protection has been a hallmark of Sen. Blackburn’s public service, and for good reasons. Not only does represent the songwriting capital of the world, Nashville, but copyright protection is a critically important area of policy. Trump is right, and Sen. Blackburn is wrong, on federal preemption of state AI regulation.

We at IPI take a backseat to no one in the defense of copyright, a topic we’ve covered for almost two decades. IPI is an accredited NGO with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva, Switzerland, and for several years IPI sponsored the leading World IP Day (April 26) policy event in Washington DC.

So we’re big on copyright.

All of copyright is a balancing act between the rights of creators and ease of public access (notice I didn’t say “the rights of consumers,” because no one has a right to someone else’s property). But there can’t be any discussion of balance until the fundamental right of creators to own and control their creations is acknowledged, and certainly not disregarded.

That’s why President Trump’s comments on copyright and AI are so troubling. No one expects Trump to be an expert on intellectual property law, but the sentiments he expressed would be very dangerous to the U.S. economy.

Below is a transcript of the portion of President Trump's July 23, 2025 speech on his administration's new AI Action Plan. This excerpt captures his comments about copyright and AI.

. . . 

"And that begins with a commonsense application of artificial and intellectual property rules.

"It’s so important. You can’t be expected to have a successful AI program where every single article, book or anything else that you’ve read or studied, you’re supposed to pay for. “Gee, I read a book. I’m supposed to pay somebody.”

"And we appreciate that, but you just can’t do it because it’s not doable.

"And if you’re going to try and do that, you’re not going to have a successful program. I think most of the people in the room know what I mean.

"When a person reads a book or an article, you’ve gained great knowledge. That does not mean you’re violating copyright laws or have to make deals with every content provider. And that’s a big thing that you’re working on right now. I know.

"But you just can’t do it. China’s not doing it. And if you’re going to be beating China—And right now, we’re leading China very substantially in AI. Very, very substantially. And nobody’s seen the amount of work that’s going to be bursting upon the scene

"But you have to be able to play by the same set of rules. So when you have something, when you read something, and it goes into this vast intelligence machine, we’ll call it, you cannot expect to every time, every single time say, “Oh let’s pay this one that much. Let’s pay this one.” Just doesn’t work that way. Of course, you can’t copy or plagiarize an article, but if you read an article and learn from it, we have to allow AI to use that pool of knowledge without going through the complexity of contract negotiations, of which there would be thousands for every time we use AI."

Sometime in the next 24 hours, the final Senate version of the “Big, Beautiful Bill”—which will principally serve to continue an array of tax cuts originally put on the books in 2017, but which could also contain a variety of other tax and other measures—will likely be locked. 

Senators are currently engaged in a “vote-a-rama” on a large number of amendments, plus one final “wrap around” amendment to determine what amendments will be made.

But as of right now, there are at least two problems with the bill on the energy front alone.

The Institute for Policy Innovation recently provided comment to the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) supporting the agency’s Section 301 investigation into China’s manipulation to dominate the semiconductor industry. As USTR specified when it announced the investigation in late December, the initial focus will be on legacy semiconductors and Silicon Carbide (SiC) substrates. While there is certainly reason to be concerned about China’s dominance of the semiconductor industry writ-large, these initial focus areas are worthy of special attention, especially SiC.

Just a couple of pics from IPI's February Policy Luncheon in Dallas with Texas Rep. Richard Hayes.

Texas is quickly rapidly evolving into a hub for technology and innovation, as the state continues to serve as a refuge for companies and homeowners fleeing the regulatory morass of California.  

Unfortunately, there are some bad regulations that just can’t be escaped. 

In response to the state’s rise as a hub for ascendant technology, Texas universities have worked to build out programs that would allow students to take advantage of tech opportunities. This is a no brainer. Unfortunately, the federal government is throwing a wrench in the works, by pushing for regulatory changes that would dramatically disrupt institutions' ability to partner with online program managers (OPMs) - a critical partner that’s helping schools scale up low-cost, relevant programs to meet emerging market demands. 

These partnerships between universities and OPMs took off after the Department of Education (ED) issued a Dear Colleague Letter in 2011, to provide guidance on college contractors, called “third-party servicers.” At the time, the ED clarified that contractors offering “bundled services” (often a combination of online technology platforms, coursework design, recruiting, and other services) could be compensated via tuition revenue-sharing arrangements. 

Streaming has become the main way most Americans consume movies, TV shows and music today, and the transition has been rapid and disruptive. Hollywood and the streaming services have been much in the news lately, with writers and actors striking over issues including the compensation changes that streaming has introduced into the content economy. 

“Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”

-          Viktor E. Frankl

What are we to think of moves by Texas and Florida Republicans to ban private businesses from requiring proof of vaccination before entering their premises or engaging with their employees? Without a doubt such policies are popular with the Republican grassroots, but are they based on the right principles? 

Sadly, no. 

Many people skeptical about government power and about Covid-19 itself have agitated against “vaccine passports” and against any requirement to take the vaccine or to have to prove that they have been vaccinated. 

And it’s probably correct that government agencies should not require proof of vaccination for Covid-19 in order to obtain necessary services from government. That’s probably an untenable intrusion on Americans’ sense of personal privacy, although of course schools have for decades required proof of vaccination for school attendance. 

Here in Texas Dan Patrick, the Lieutenant Governor and Leader of the Senate, has a bill, SB4, that would require the National Anthem to be performed before any public sporting event that is in any way connected to taxpayer dollars. That would include all public schools, of course, but would even include private sporting venues if they received tax abatements, subsidies, or dedicated sales taxes.

Whatever you think of taxpayer funding of sporting venues (and I don’t think much of it), Patrick’s bill is blatantly unconstitutional in that it violates the First Amendment.

Monday May 3^rd I was honored to again have a piece published in the Wall Street Journal. The topic of this one was the “Right to Repair” movement, and why forcing manufacturers to supply details about their technologies, whether covered by patent, copyright, or trade secret, would be harmful to innovation.

While the piece appeared in the May 3^rd edition, I knew it had gone live Sunday evening around 8pm because I suddenly started getting vitriolic Twitter traffic in response to it. And it’s still going on strong 24 hours later. I have had many hundreds of tweets trashing me and the piece, questioning my motives, my intelligence, my knowledge of the issue, my research skills, my honesty, my integrity, my Christianity (yes), etc.

Reactors to the piece on social media fall into one of three categories:

• Friends in the IP policy world who praised and shared the piece,
• Hordes of Twitter keyboard warriors with single-digit followers bashing the piece and insulting me personally BUT focusing on extraneous issues, and
• One guy, Louis Rossmann, who is apparently the guru of Right to Repair. He has a YouTube following of 1.5 million subscribers, and apparently his meaning in life is Right to Repair.

Today, the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in support of the FCC’s 5.9 GHz proceeding.

If you’re into that sort of thing, that’s all you need to know. If you have no idea what that is about, the rest of this is for you.

Spectrum is a limited resources, and these days is in more demand than ever. Broadcast TV and radio, wireless phones, Wi-Fi, baby monitors, home security devices, first responder communications, military and satellite applications—and scores more things all use wireless spectrum. And because there seems no end of demand for spectrum, policymakers have recognized that it could get crowded.

That’s why the FCC has for years been identifying bands of unused and underused spectrum so that it could be repurposed for more efficient use. Oh, and because it is auctioned off, that’s more revenue for the federal government.

In recent years spectrum belonging to television broadcasters and satellite companies has been auctioned and repurposed to obtain more spectrum for wireless phones.

But it turns out, the biggest hoarder of unused and underused spectrum is the federal government itself. Many agencies have been allocated spectrum, and much of this spectrum has been left idle or underused for decades. A lot, but not all, has been reserved by the military, and eventually some of that is going to have to be clawed back as well.

In 1999 a block of spectrum was allocated to the Department of Transportation (DOT) to be used for future smart cars to be able to talk with each other, with the goal of increased public safety. The DOT came up with a plan called Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DSRC) for cars to communicate with each other and coordinate with each other.

Well, fine. Except that for the last 20 years, almost nothing has been done with this important band of spectrum. Meanwhile, it has become clear that autonomous vehicles aren’t going to be safer because they are dependent on communications with all the other vehicles around them – they are going to be safer because they are autonomous and independent. Creating a system of dependencies just doesn’t make sense—it probably makes such cars more vulnerable in that it could create a false sense of security.

So the FCC essentially wants to take part of the 5.9 GHz spectrum away from the DOT. Can you predict how the DOT might respond to such a request?

Yeah, you’re right. Huge, ugly turf battle between Elaine Chao (Sec. of Transportation) and Ajit Pai (Chairman of FCC). Except that the FCC has final say over such things.

The best use of the 5.9 GHz spectrum is to leave a little bit of it with DOT and see if they come up with something useful to do with it, while making most of it available for more efficient uses. And that is what the FCC’s proceeding is about, and it’s why IPI filed comments today in support of the FCC’s proceeding.

In the course of trying to reorganize my little home office so that it could become an actually useful and productive space . . . I just snipped off my old ISDN line.

Only you old timers will remember when we were dependent on ISDN lines for clear voice lines for radio interviews, and for “high speed” internet. ISDN was faster than dial-up (barely) and clearer than twisted pair analog voice lines.

Getting one installed in my home was an ordeal, but also a treasure. You could split 1 ISDN line into two channels so that—get this—you could be on the phone and on the internet at the SAME TIME.

It was really incredible that you could have decent data speed (at that time) and also be on the phone, all through a single phone line. 

Because we lived\live out in a rural area, we weren't exactly among the first to be offered higher speed technologies. DSL (remember that?) was never available at our house, and to this day cable has never been available at our address.

So it was ISDN for a number of years, even while others went to DSL, and then we were able to go to a regional fixed wireless provider, before in the most amazing circumstance we ended up being one of the very first areas to have Verizon's "new" FiOS product offered. I believe I was the 3rd home hooked up to FiOS, and for many months called once a week to find out whether they were yet taking installation appointments.

Unbelievable.

And unbelievable how far we have come.

The real questions are as follows: 1) is the damage of the trade war worth it? Is the short-term harm worth some greater long-term good? Some critical geopolitical strategy? 

And 2) are tariffs the best way to accomplish the possible long-term good asserted? 

Tax cuts aimed at capital produce the most significant economic benefits. A legacy 2001 IPI study by economists Gary and Aldona Robbins shows that a cut in capital gains taxes would be one of two most effective to stimulate the economy. In their study, the Robbinses concluded that a capital gains cut would spur economic growth substantially more than any other stimulus measure, with economic growth of more than $10 for every dollar of lost revenue