In the United States, artificial intelligence is shifting from a technological trend to an arena of active political confrontation. The presidential administration has announced its intention to centralize AI regulation and limit the authority of individual states, many of which are already developing their own rules. This has created a unique dynamic: businesses and technology companies are rapidly intensifying their GR activity, as the future architecture of American AI legislation is now being shaped.
The initiative includes the development of a federal framework that would establish unified rules for AI systems, including standards for responsibility, certification, data access and algorithmic safety. In parallel, the administration is considering an executive order that would temporarily block restrictive state-level AI laws until a nationwide regulatory model is adopted.
For American businesses, this creates a period of regulatory uncertainty that requires active engagement with policymakers. Companies developing AI models, data-processing systems, cybersecurity tools, digital marketing solutions, and online platforms are already launching large-scale lobbying campaigns to influence the content of the future law. According to leading analytical outlets, the number of registered GR initiatives related to AI has increased dramatically compared to previous years.
In practical terms, the debate centers around competing regulatory models: a stricter approach similar to the EU framework; a more flexible, innovation-oriented model; or a hybrid system with sector-specific rules. The chosen model will determine the cost of compliance, access to investment and the reporting obligations businesses face. This is why technology companies are seeking to participate in the policymaking process at the earliest stages.
For the GR market, this trend underscores an important reality: even in jurisdictions with developed lobbying systems and broad access to decision-makers, businesses need professional support. The role of consultants is increasing, especially for clients who require a structured policy position, effective communication with government institutions, analytical briefings and forecasting of regulatory scenarios.
For Ukraine, this dynamic is relevant for two key reasons. First, global AI regulatory approaches will inevitably affect Ukrainian companies operating on or integrating with the US market. Second, Ukraine can monitor how rules governing data access, safety obligations, liability, and transparency are forming internationally — insights that may guide future national regulation.
The intensification of lobbying in the United States demonstrates that shaping AI policy requires comprehensive business involvement. Those who prepare early — by developing a clear advocacy strategy, articulating their position and investing in professional GR support — will be better positioned to adapt to the emerging regulatory landscape. For technology companies, this is no longer a competitive advantage but a strategic necessity.
