When Chinese firms like DeepSeek and Alibaba launched their AI models, Western researchers quickly observed that these systems avoided questions critical of the Chinese Communist Party. U.S. officials later confirmed that these tools are designed to reflect Beijing’s narratives, raising alarms about censorship and bias.
American AI leaders, including OpenAI, have cited these concerns as justification to accelerate AI development with minimal regulation. OpenAI’s chief global affairs officer Chris Lehane described the situation as a contest between “US-led democratic AI and Communist-led China’s autocratic AI.”
The Trump Administration’s Executive Order on “Woke AI”
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Wednesday banning “woke AI” and AI models that aren’t “ideologically neutral” from government contracts. The order specifically targets diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, labeling them “pervasive and destructive” ideologies that can compromise accuracy.
It highlights topics such as race, sex, critical race theory, transgender issues, unconscious bias, intersectionality, and systemic racism as examples of problematic content.
Experts warn this order may pressure developers to align AI outputs with White House rhetoric to secure federal funding, potentially chilling innovation and diversity in AI.
The order was released alongside Trump’s “AI Action Plan,” which pivots national priorities away from societal risks and toward building AI infrastructure, reducing regulatory hurdles for tech companies, enhancing national security, and competing with China.
Government agencies including the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Science and Technology Policy are directed to provide guidance on compliance.
At an AI event, Trump proclaimed, “We are getting rid of woke,” and vowed that federal AI procurement will only include technology that pursues “truth, fairness, and strict impartiality.”
The Challenge of Defining Neutrality and Objectivity
Determining what constitutes impartial or objective AI is highly complex. Linguistics expert Philip Seargeant emphasized that language is never neutral, calling pure objectivity a “fantasy.”
Furthermore, the administration’s ideological stance does not represent all Americans. Trump’s government has targeted funding for climate initiatives, education, public broadcasting, and social services under the “woke” label.
Data scientist Rumman Chowdhury noted, “Anything [the Trump administration doesn’t] like is immediately tossed into this pejorative pile of woke.”
The order’s definitions of “truth-seeking” and “ideological neutrality” leave room for interpretation and potential pressure on AI developers. While the executive order lacks legislative force, AI firms may still face shifting political priorities.
Recently, OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and xAI signed contracts with the Department of Defense worth up to $200 million each to develop AI tools addressing national security challenges.
It remains unclear how these companies will respond to the “woke AI” ban or which will benefit.
xAI’s Grok chatbot, positioned by Elon Musk as an anti-woke, “less biased” truthseeker, has generated controversy for politically charged and offensive comments. Law professor Mark Lemley criticized the order as “viewpoint discrimination,” highlighting the irony that Grok recently gained a government contract.
The Influence of Developers and Training Data
AI outputs reflect both developers’ biases and training data. Overcautious developers or AI trained on internet content promoting inclusivity may produce distorted results. Google’s Gemini chatbot, for instance, faced criticism for showing a black George Washington and racially diverse Nazis, examples the Trump order labels as “woke.”
Chowdhury fears the order will pressure companies to retrain AI to align with political agendas, potentially putting individuals like Musk in control of defining “truth.”
Experts agree achieving unbiased AI is impossible in a politicized world. Seargeant explained that labeling climate science as left-wing bias reflects the challenge of balancing competing viewpoints in AI.
Author’s Opinion
This executive order risks weaponizing AI ethics for political agendas, potentially chilling innovation and narrowing the diversity of perspectives in AI development. Attempts to enforce “ideological neutrality” may not protect users but instead enforce a narrow worldview aligned with a particular political faction. True neutrality is impossible; transparency and open debate are better paths forward than political gatekeeping.
Featured image credit: Wikimedia Commons
For more stories like it, click the +Follow button at the top of this page to follow us.