AI’s Impact on Politics, Economy, and the 2026 U.S. Elections
Artificial intelligence is entering the workplace and reshaping the landscape. Now, it’s approaching the ballot box, vowing to fundamentally alter the essence of politics. Propelled by an influx of capital from Silicon Valley, AI has become a significant financial influence in the current US elections, supported by hundreds of millions of dollars from tech billionaires, notably venture capitalist Marc Andreessen and OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman. Their objective is straightforward: to elect a group of candidates who will respond to their demands for reduced government regulation of the emerging technology. All that spending has collided with growing bipartisan discontent towards AI, sparked by the widespread establishment of data centers and exacerbated by firms adopting the technology to cut labour expenses. In recent polls, a growing number of voters attribute the sharp rise in electricity bills, which have escalated by as much as 267%, to AI. There is also a prevailing concern that AI may ultimately jeopardise their employment, reflecting the persistent economic anxiety that has characterised recent US elections. On the campaign trail, AI is reshaping the strategies for running for office, mirroring its transformative impact on business practices throughout the economy. There is currently a frantic effort among candidates and consultants to leverage technology in order to gain an advantage in ad production and voter targeting. Simultaneously, the AI models employed by financially constrained campaigns can also be utilised by adversaries and external disruptors to disseminate disinformation and foster scepticism within the electorate. “This is the first AI election from a substantive perspective,” stated Beth Simone Noveck. “It occupies a central position in the essence of the discussion.”
November’s congressional contests are poised to be among the most significant in recent years, acting as a referendum on President Donald Trump’s management of the economy — particularly his wager on the AI boom as a catalyst for growth. For Trump, the stakes extend beyond his economic legacy: the potential loss of Republican control in the US House and Senate could trigger a renewed push for impeachment and a multitude of investigations into his administration. AI’s influence has permeated nearly every aspect of the midterms, from financing to core issues facing voters, and it is poised to play an even larger role in the 2028 race to succeed Trump. The campaign is unfolding against an AI-fueled market rally that highlights the risks associated with technology potentially exacerbating the divide between the affluent and the impoverished, a concern articulated by Pope Leo XIV in a comprehensive missive on AI that urged governments and industry to prevent it from “dominating humanity.” Younger voters in the US are increasingly apprehensive about AI’s impact on entry-level job opportunities, as evidenced by polls indicating their growing discontent with the technology. Graduates at the University of Arizona expressed their disapproval towards former Google Chief Executive Officer Eric Schmidt during his commencement speech when he mentioned AI, indicating that a significant segment of the audience remains sceptical about the advantages touted by the technology sector. Races across the country indicate the widespread influence of AI. In Louisiana, a super political action committee has unveiled the state’s inaugural AI-generated advertisement, featuring a blue-haired liberal protester alongside a moustachioed barista, both expressing dismay over a Republican congressional candidate.
In Texas, the conservative PAC Citizens for Sanity initiated an AI-driven advertisement in June targeting Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico. The ad portrays him in a dress, singing affectionately about transgender children. “The AI genie is out of the bottle,” Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner, who’s made AI issues a central plank in his reelection campaign, said in an interview. “You can almost not make a better bogeyman than, ‘Oh my gosh, are the robots going to take over? Are we going to have jobs?’” Silicon Valley’s largest AI developers are acutely aware of the potential voter backlash that could threaten their planned expenditures amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars on new infrastructure. In response, they are fortifying their investments with substantial financial contributions to campaigns nationwide. In total, the industry has committed $275 million for the midterm elections at both the federal and state levels, having already expended $44.5 million on federal primaries. Those commitments, if fulfilled, would surpass the $133 million that the cryptocurrency sector allocated to numerous congressional candidates in 2024, a period during which it contributed to the defeat of several Democratic incumbents, including Senate Banking Committee chair Sherrod Brown. Perhaps no other electoral contest encapsulates the implications for artificial intelligence more succinctly than the race for a House district in central Manhattan. Alex Bores, a Democratic state assemblyman who has led the charge for more stringent AI safety legislation, found himself under attack from industry-backed groups that deployed millions of dollars in spending against him. The contest swiftly evolved into a wider proxy battle between industry competitors OpenAI and Anthropic PBC regarding the extent of government intervention in the technology sector.
Leading the Future, a super PAC backed by Andreessen, Brockman, and other prominent figures from the tech industry, is set to allocate a minimum of $125 million nationwide to support candidates who advocate for a more lenient stance on AI regulation. It contends that states should not take the initiative on AI regulations, asserting that the federal government ought to establish a more lenient national standard. The opposing faction is spearheaded by Public First Action, a political nonprofit that finances a super PAC supporting candidates advocating for stricter AI regulations, which encompass mandates for companies to disclose safety risks to the government. The nonprofit has secured $20 million from Anthropic, whose demand for additional safeguards for its technology sparked a contentious disagreement with the Pentagon. The group’s super PACs have received donations from current and former engineers at OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta Platforms. In New York, the Democratic faction of Leading the Future allocated more than $8 million to counter Bores, an effort that inadvertently elevated his visibility, resulting in substantial financial support from AI safety proponents and technology professionals nationwide. Public First’s Democratic group allocated more than $15 million in support of his campaign, pointing to Leading the Future’s participation as evidence of his commitment to addressing corporate power. It was joined by super PACs, including one financed by San Francisco billionaire Chris Larsen, which commenced airing pro-Bores advertisements attributing blame to AI for “giant data centers, draining our water supply, relentless noise,” alongside the elimination of “millions of jobs.”
All that capital flowing in from both sides is permeating the discourse in other races nationwide and motivating AI safety proponents to allocate their contributions elsewhere. Larsen’s group, established to enhance Bores, has commenced financial support for Colorado State Representative Manny Rutinel, who is campaigning for Congress and has a history of advocating for state-level regulations aimed at preventing AI discrimination against minorities. Other advocacy groups have surfaced with the objective of influencing midterm voters. An organization called the Innovation Council, supported by venture capitalist and former Trump adviser David Sacks, plans to allocate up to $100 million to advocate for the president’s AI agenda. Established as a political nonprofit, the council is not obligated to reveal its donors, and it has yet to commence expenditures on electoral contests. “If you consider AI, it appears that everything is beyond the control of individuals; it resides with these technology giants,” stated Sarah Kreps. “That’s creating backlash.” Outside New York, advertisements financed by AI-supported super PACs predominantly avoid the technology and concentrate on alternative subjects that appeal to voters, a strategy utilised by the cryptocurrency sector in 2024. Even so, the sheer volume of money flowing into races across the country has elevated AI on the agenda — including in districts where it would typically be less of a priority. In Texas, Republican congressional candidate Jace Yarbrough authored an op-ed in February extolling the benefits of AI, advocating for the United States to “own the future of AI by investing in American innovation.” Leading the Future allocated $130,000 in support of his campaign, resulting in Yarbrough’s victory in the runoff election.
Meanwhile, in Illinois, Jesse Jackson Jr., son of the late civil rights icon, published an op-ed in January hailing AI as potentially life-saving for carers, raising an issue that was novel for his majority-Black working-class district on the south side of Chicago. When he last held office in 2013, artificial intelligence policy was not yet a consideration. Leading the Future’s Democratic arm allocated more than $1.4 million to Jackson’s campaign following the publication of his op-ed; however, he ultimately lost the race. Jackson’s opponent, progressive Illinois State Senator Robert Peters, stated that he believes he was targeted due to his introduction of legislation aimed at regulating the industry. “This creates a chilling effect down-ballot,” Peters stated. “This influences the perceptions of individuals within the state legislature or municipal level regarding these policies, as they observe affluent billionaire corporate leaders inundating the political system with financial contributions and exhibiting a readiness to mislead the public.” However, there is an alternative perspective: certain legislators have exited races characterised by AI expenditures with a heightened determination to impose regulations on the industry. In May, Peters aligned with 51 Illinois state senators to endorse an AI safety bill mandating that developers undergo third-party audits, a stipulation that has historically faced resistance from the industry. Although the intricate details of technology regulation are not a top priority for voters in the upcoming election, there is a growing concern among the electorate regarding artificial intelligence, which they associate with their overall apprehensions about the economy. The industry’s rapid plan to allocate up to $725 billion this year for data centers is closely linked to a fundamental theme of the campaign: affordability.
Public discontent has focused on energy-intensive AI facilities that are causing wholesale power prices to surge more than three-fold in certain regions. Many voters express their discontent, as a recent Gallup survey indicates that seven in ten Americans are now against the establishment of new AI data centers. Concerns regarding energy and water consumption emerged as the primary factors, according to the results. “The data center debates are galvanising discussion about the role of this industry and what its impact will be,” stated Noveck. “We are beginning to understand that these concepts are not merely distant abstractions; rather, they are driven by the infrastructure present in our immediate environment,” she stated. Progressives have focused their attention on data centers as a promising issue in their efforts to gain control of the House and Senate from Republicans. In March, Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez put forth a proposal for a nationwide moratorium on the establishment of new centers. While their bill stands little chance of passing, it nonetheless reflects an increasing voter discontent regarding new AI infrastructure, which is becoming more apparent at the local level. In April, Compass Datacenters acknowledged public opposition in halting a prolonged initiative to develop a segment of a 2,100-acre technology corridor in Northern Virginia — a region recognised as the premier data-center market globally. Earlier this month, New York lawmakers sanctioned a one-year moratorium on new data centers, which would represent the first statewide pause in the United States if endorsed by Governor Kathy Hochul. That sentiment is emerging in campaign advertisements across New Jersey, Wyoming, Virginia, and Montana. “Rob Menendez has worked to make life more affordable,” states a voiceover in a segment endorsing the New Jersey Democratic representative. “Now, he’s taking on big corporations whose data centers are causing energy costs to skyrocket.” Because data center decisions, including permitting, often fall to local officials, AI companies are investing to influence those races as well. In Texas, Meta’s PAC allocated more than $1.3 million towards legislative races in early March, which included an expenditure of $174,000 in support of state senate candidate David Cook.
One of Cook’s opponents, Rena Schroeder, initiated her campaign by advocating for a cessation of data center construction. She discovered weeks later that Meta was supporting her opponent and now contends that the company’s financial backing rendered her victory unattainable. “Texas was sold to the highest bidder,” Schroeder remarked. Some Republicans are expressing opposition to data centers due to energy-related concerns and findings indicating that these facilities do not generate a significant number of new jobs. In Pennsylvania, Republican gubernatorial candidate Stacy Garrity expressed her support for a moratorium on the establishment of new data centers. Her opponent, Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro, has been a significant advocate for the expansion of data centers within the state, while simultaneously advocating for robust regulatory measures for the industry. “There’s frustration, there’s confusion,” Garrity said during a campaign stop in June. “People think that it’s going to go in their backyard. They’re afraid. These concerns have to be addressed.” Despite the reservations surrounding AI, candidates have swiftly integrated it into their strategies, mirroring their historical adoption of innovations such as television, text messaging, and social media in their relentless pursuit of a competitive advantage. AI’s presence is prominently showcased in the surge of computer-generated videos that are increasingly prevalent in high-profile contests across California, Texas, and Kentucky. Deepfakes have transitioned from a mere novelty, exemplified by clips of Joe Biden and Trump enjoying ice cream on a park bench two years ago, to a more sophisticated and pervasive component of political campaigning. Spencer Pratt, a former reality television star, has embarked on a long-shot campaign for the mayoralty of Los Angeles. His efforts received a notable boost from a series of animated AI videos that gained viral traction last month, resulting in a surge of contributions to his campaign. One of the segments depicted Pratt as a Batman-like superhero confronting incumbent Mayor Karen Bass, who is characterised as a Joker-like villain.
While Pratt ultimately fell short of qualifying for a runoff against Bass, the videos significantly enhanced his candidature as a political newcomer. “The primary impact these tools can have is they do help upstarts who have a fundraising disadvantage over incumbents to get their message out in ways that were difficult or more expensive,” stated Neil Chilson. Clips of this nature have prompted enquiries regarding the appropriate boundaries to establish. Banning deepfakes outright remains off the table, owing to free-speech safeguards under the US Constitution. Nonetheless, 30 states have established regulations concerning their application in campaign messaging, with the majority mandating disclosures that specify whether AI was utilised and the identity of the funding sources. Minnesota and Texas have enacted measures to prohibit political deepfakes a specified number of days prior to an election. Candidates who are the subjects of unflattering deepfakes find themselves with limited options for having these materials removed. A clip featuring Representative Sean Casten showcased the Illinois Democrat advocating for the incarceration of Trump supporters, the abolition of police forces, and the distribution of fentanyl to the homeless population. Shared on Facebook by an unidentified individual, the post featured Casten’s official congressional portrait, depicting him with a grin, an air of condescension, and making questionable gestures. He informed Meta, Facebook’s parent company, about the video, and the organization consented to label it as being created with AI. However, Meta did not take down the post, illustrating the tech sector’s predominantly laissez-faire attitude towards artificial intelligence. “It would not surprise me to see in every competitive race AI-generated ads of the Democrat hanging out on Jeffrey Epstein’s island and partying with a bunch of young girls,” Casten stated in an interview. “We must be ready for a significant amount of that.”
AI is establishing a lasting presence in politics through various means. According to a survey conducted by Data for Progress, a progressive think tank, a significant portion of the American electorate is turning to technology for guidance on Election Day. Specifically, 55% of voters under the age of 45 are inclined to utilise chatbots to gather information regarding candidates and elections. In response, strategists are swiftly analysing how to navigate political queries, akin to the optimisation of search engine results that was mastered decades ago. The trend is prompting political and tech transparency groups to explore methods for ensuring that chatbots provide credible and unbiased responses — a significantly more challenging endeavour than for SEO, given that chatbots generate varied responses for each individual user. Mark Meckler, head of Convention of States, suggests that increasing content output could help chatbots provide positive insights on candidates. AI tools seek answers, and if campaigns fall short, they’ll look elsewhere. “Candidates must be the ultimate authority on their own narratives,” stated Meckler. Years and multiple election cycles are needed to reveal AI’s economic impact. Industries like marketing, customer service, and tech are feeling the impact, with around 11,000 jobs lost monthly, as reported recently. It remains to be seen how extensive job losses will be as AI adoption speeds up.
Many politicians from both parties recognise the advantages of the data center rollout, particularly as a source of high-paying blue-collar jobs. AI data center construction has created 212,000 jobs since 2022, says Goldman Sachs. Tech infrastructure boosts business spending by 10.4%, driving US growth to a 2% annualised rate in Q1. Republican Byron Donalds, a candidate for Florida governor, criticised data center opposition as “performative” at a February event, following a $5 million pledge from pro-AI group Leading the Future. “We need to take charge, not just be clever on social media, and avoid saying no without a plan,” he stated. In June, Donalds diverged from Leading the Future and Trump on AI safety legislation, advocating for states to spearhead regulation of AI companies. Senator Warner of Virginia champions AI and backs data centers. Despite funding from leading AI firms, he emphasised the need for clarity on how these companies will prevent overwhelming individuals. He predicted the midterms would be “shaped by AI,” with a key turning point in two years. “Welcome to the warm-up round,” Warner announced. This will be the defining issue of the 2028 presidential race.
