The Trump administration plans to vet AI models for “ideological bias” and limit government contracts to tech companies whose models offer “objective truth”
Federal government will only do business with tech companies whose models offer ‘objective truth’
Financial Times
Context & Ripple Effects
This plan follows reports that the White House was preparing a federal-contract neutrality order, turning a political critique of model behavior into a prospective procurement condition.
Related coverage shows the approach later being formalized around “truth-seeking” and “ideological neutrality” in federal LLM procurement principles. The significance is less a general AI rulebook than the use of federal buying power to define acceptable model conduct.
First-order effects
AI vendors seeking federal work would face vetting against an administration-defined standard of ideological bias and “objective truth,” making model behavior a contract-eligibility issue.
Federal agencies would have a new basis to distinguish among otherwise eligible AI suppliers when procuring models and related services.
Second-order effects
Vendors competing for government business may need to document, test, or alter model policies and outputs to meet the procurement standard, even where the terms remain open to interpretation.
The move creates an incentive for rivals to market themselves as government-compatible; later draft civilian-contract guidance indicates how procurement requirements can broaden from model behavior to permitted government use.
Third-order effects
If procurement criteria become durable, federal demand could help split the AI market between models optimized for government compatibility and those governed by different product or policy commitments.
The pattern points toward AI oversight implemented through contract terms rather than a centralized regulator, with the practical definition of neutrality likely remaining contested.
The trend: This is part of a shift toward state-mediated AI governance, in which access to major public-sector customers depends on meeting politically defined model standards.
Imagine if any other admin tried to pull this level of censorship. It will sadly have a massive effect on AIs' usefulness and truth relaying abilities & should scare the shit out of all of us, esp. people that work at AI labs. The odds that their work will fuel Orwell's fever d…
Yesterday the Trump administration released their official AI Action Plan, which (surprise!) is another major hand-out to Big Tech + Big Oil at the expense of everyday, working class people. — www.ai.gov/action-plan?...
Curios as to why this sentence is here. And curious as to why there's no mention of liberals' concerns of the technology. The piece lays out the President's proposed policy, but this seems to be the only sentence about politics. — www.nytimes.com/2025/07/23/t... [image]
The White House's new AI Action plan is out www.ai.gov/action-plan — As expected, it puts the squeeze on AI companies by requiring them to make AI systems that are “objective and free from top-down ideological bias” (aka “not woke"). [image]
The wording of “top-down” ideological bias is apt here..."top-down" bias is put in place to balance “bottom-up” bias. — E.g., If something coming up from the bottom leans to the left, you lean it to the right at the top to make it straight. [embedded post]
“top-down ideological bias” might give AI companies some wiggle room to attest that they are not doing “woke” post-training. — How does one prove that an LLM response the Right doesn't like wasn't because of post-training? “Ideological bias” is ill-defined and can change on a …
Given, whether we like it or not, students at all levels are using LLMs as integral learning tools, dictating the training data is no different than than Stalin dictating what was acceptable areas of study in physics or other disciplines. The outcome crippled Soviet science for …
The procurement guidelines seem good but this is basically what frontier labs are doing anyways, and gov contracting is small potatoes relative to the commercial market so it's unclear how big the incentive really is
Jacob Helberg seemed an important conversation to have today. His view on the AI Action Plan. POTUS later noted (in speech) the role he might play as Undersecretary Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth (designate). Welcome feedback @jacobhelberg https://www.youtube.com/..…
REPORTER: “Does President Trump support federal agencies contracting with Elon Musk's AI company?” LEAVITT: “I don't think so, no.” REPORTER: “So he would want the DOJ to cancel the contract with Elon.” LEAVITT: “I'll talk to him about it, yes.” [video]
When they asked me how to define “woke,” I said there's only one person to call: Chris Rufo. And now it's law: the federal government will not be buying WokeAI.
IMO it's near-impossible to regulate LLM outputs at a federal level since code is speech and forcing AI to be “unbiased” would be compelled speech But real plan feels like just yelling about anti-conservative bias at congressional hearings (like with social media post-2016!)
This is an extremely important measure and I'm proud to have given some minor input on how to define “woke AI” and identify DEI ideologies within the operating constitutions of these systems. Congrats to @DavidSacks, @sriramk, @deanwball, and the team!