OpenAI is seeking to shape the policy debate ahead of the 2028 US presidential election, with its chief global affairs officer Chris Lehane arguing that artificial intelligence could become a defining political and economic issue.
In a recent essay, Lehane compared AI’s potential to reshape the economy with the impact of industrialisation and the economic upheaval that prompted US President Franklin D Roosevelt’s New Deal reforms in the 1930s.
He said Americans were increasingly anxious about losing control over their economic futures and called on politicians to develop a “compelling third path” that would allow the public to benefit from AI rather than simply resist the technology.
Lehane outlined five policy priorities covering worker protections, education, AI safety, economic opportunities and data centre development.
His proposals come after Democrats made significant gains in the US midterm elections, with voter frustration over living costs shaping the political debate. Opposition to data centre construction also emerged as an issue in several electoral contests.
Critics question who benefits from OpenAI’s proposals
Lehane’s essay has drawn criticism from policy experts who say its emphasis on expanding AI adoption does not adequately address the risks of job displacement, corporate concentration and unequal distribution of economic gains.
Kate Brennan, who leads AI and corporate power policy at the AI Now Institute, described the comparison with the New Deal as problematic, arguing that the original reforms introduced worker protections and constraints on corporate power.
“Invoking a New Deal metaphor is to invoke state capacity to actually benefit the public,” Brennan told TechCrunch. “This is written by a private company that is trying to advocate for policies for its own benefit.”
Lehane proposes using tax incentives to encourage workers to develop AI skills, improving access to capital for entrepreneurs and exploring employee ownership and profit-sharing arrangements.
However, Brennan argued that these measures do not amount to binding requirements ensuring workers share in AI-generated wealth or that companies bear the costs of job displacement.
She suggested alternative measures, including changes to corporate taxation, incentives for hiring human workers and policies to prevent companies from accumulating excessive market power.
Data centres and jobs become election issues
Data centre development is another major part of Lehane’s proposed agenda.
He acknowledged concerns about the facilities but highlighted their potential to generate construction jobs and local tax revenue.
Lehane also warned that proposals for a moratorium on data centre construction could undermine America’s ability to compete with China in AI development. He compared such opposition with the 2002 congressional vote authorising the Iraq war.
However, data centres have faced growing opposition over concerns about electricity consumption, rising utility bills and their impact on local communities.
As affordability is expected to remain a major issue in the 2028 presidential campaign, the economic costs and benefits of AI infrastructure could become a more prominent part of the debate.
AI safety, education and children’s protection
Lehane also called for age-appropriate safeguards for children, including protections around AI companions and greater attention to how the technology is used in schools.
He argued that keeping AI out of classrooms could widen educational inequalities between wealthy students and children in rural communities.
Critics, however, question whether the educational benefits of AI have been sufficiently established and argue that its use should be assessed alongside investment in teachers and traditional educational resources.
On AI safety, Lehane advocated enforceable standards, independent evaluations and public oversight. He also supported maintaining the ability to restrict AI systems or shut them down when necessary.
Brennan questioned the consistency of these proposals, pointing to OpenAI’s previous opposition to California’s AI safety legislation, SB 1047, in 2024, and its calls last year to limit state-level regulation of AI.
OpenAI has since shifted some of its positions, supporting several state safety laws and expressing openness to independent safety evaluators working within AI companies.
Lehane also argued that people should retain control over consequential decisions involving AI rather than handing judgement entirely to automated systems.
AI’s role in the 2028 presidential race
The debate over AI is expected to intersect with wider concerns about employment, inflation, electricity costs and economic inequality.
Lehane presented AI as a potential source of prosperity and economic opportunity, but critics say his proposals offer limited detail on how those gains would be distributed or how companies would be held accountable for disruption caused by the technology.
TechCrunch said it contacted OpenAI for further details about Lehane’s proposals and the company’s positions but had not received a response by the time of publication.
Whether AI becomes a central issue in the 2028 presidential campaign remains uncertain, but the debate over its economic impact and regulation is already taking shape.
