A fundamental split among Trump supporters

Although all political coalitions represent an unstable blend of contrary elements, it would be difficult to find one more fraught with tension than the Trump administration’s shotgun marriage between traditional pro-family social conservatives and techno-libertarians. Where the former value stability and order, the latter champion dynamism and “permissionless innovation.” Where the former take their compass from human nature, the latter dream of a post-human or super-human future in which we transcend our limits through our machine creations.

In another time and place, this uneasy alliance might have co-existed for an entire presidential term, if not longer. But with the rise of artificial intelligence posing urgent questions for national prosperity, national security, and indeed the future of humanity, the two camps’ divergent instincts have already led to open conflict, most notably in the recent battle over the so-called “AI moratorium.”

Originally inserted in the House’s version of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” back in May, the provision required a ten-year moratorium on any state laws directly regulating artificial intelligence or “automated decision systems.” Not only that, but it overrode any existing state laws on the books. Although many critics felt that this was a breathtaking assault on states’ rights, the provision’s advocates were not all lobbyists for Big Tech.

Many worried that, with the United States in an existentially urgent race for global AI leadership, and with national security at stake, a patchwork of 50 different state regulatory regimes could hopelessly hamper our innovators. Others expressed concern that although appeals to states’ rights sounded great in the abstract, this technology was so complex and all-pervading that only federal regulators were likely to be able to enact a well-considered governing framework for AI. Finally, some pointed out that the reality was that powerful left-leaning states like New York and California tended to set the trajectory for tech regulation, enshrining “woke” priorities into AI law that other states would end up following.

That said, conservative critics of the provision, many from traditional pro-family groups, argued that the law was written so broadly that a ban on regulation of “automated decision systems” could well be construed by courts as a nullification of any state laws governing algorithms—including the two dozen state laws requiring automated age-verification for porn sites that were just upheld by the Supreme Court!

Initially, the debate seemed academic, because the moratorium provision seemed unlikely to pass the Senate’s so-called “Byrd rule,” which states that budget bills (like the One Big Beautiful Bill) must only contain budget-related provisions. When Sen. Ted Cruz, however, tweaked the moratorium so that it was tied to states’ receipt of federal broadband subsidies (the so-called BEAD program), the provision was approved by the Senate parliamentarian and seemed poised to become law. Many Senators had reservations about it, and Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene had come out blazing against it after it had passed the House, insisting she would never have voted for the OBBA if she had known the moratorium was in it. However, no Republican congressman wanted to be the one who sank the president’s signature budget bill.

However, Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, long a leading advocate of child online safety, circulated a letter of opposition signed by several other Republican senators, with the support of a broad coalition of pro-family groups. Over the weekend immediately before July 4, there was a mad scramble of political maneuvering, as Sen. Blackburn initially accepted a compromise proposed by Sen. Cruz, before being persuaded that the new text might provide even more leverage for Big Tech’s lawyers to nullify commonsense measures designed to prevent deepfakes and protect children. When Steve Bannon came out thundering against the moratorium on Monday, July 1, Sen. Blackburn introduced an amendment to strike it entirely from the OBBA. As opposition momentum built, Republican senators quickly switched bandwagons, and when the votes were counted at 4:00 AM Tuesday, the moratorium had been defeated 99-1.

Rather than licking their wounds, the representatives of the tech right soon took to social media to express their outrage against the “repressive,” “anti-innovation” mindset that they saw on display. Adam Thierer of the R Street Institute fulminated, “If you are a defender of progress, you will be increasingly confronted with such anti-innovation thinking on the Populist Right.”

Such language highlights the deep confusion today in our political coalitions. Increasingly, we have right-wing progressives who are every bit as loud and insistent as those on the left, insisting that we must uncritically embrace “the future” with open arms and accept a technological transformation of human nature. There is a good case to be made for regulating AI at the federal rather than state level, but it does not rest on binaries between “progress” and “repression,” nor is it reducible to love or hate for innovation. Innovation is a constant, but the question is to what end, for whose sake, and in response to what needs we are to innovate.

If we do not ensure that innovation is ordered toward the flourishing and stability of the family, what future will there be to look forward to?