Trump’s Order and Pope Leo’s Vision for Regulating AI: Can They Converge?
Since the explosion of generative artificial intelligence in the 2020s, with its ability to produce human-like text, realistic images, and convincing films, both users and developers have emphasized the need for consistent regulatory guardrails to mitigate documented harms. This concern is particularly relevant to Pope Leo XIV.
On December 11, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” which advocates for federal regulation to supersede state regulations. The order emphasizes that “AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation.”
The Challenge of Regulatory Authority
According to experts, this executive order raises a critical question: what is the proper locus of regulatory authority over technologies that are inherently borderless? There are legitimate arguments on both sides.
A unified national framework could provide clarity and consistency that responsible developers, particularly smaller firms and startups, genuinely need. The current patchwork of state laws creates compliance challenges, and poorly informed regulations could inadvertently stifle beneficial innovation. This concern is not abstract; it has been observed firsthand.
However, states have historically served as laboratories of democracy. Some of the most thoughtful regulatory efforts have emerged at the state level, as state legislators are often closer to the communities experiencing AI’s real-world effects. For example, Colorado’s algorithmic discrimination law aims to address documented harms affecting marginalized groups.
The Dichotomy of Innovation and Oversight
The order positions “innovation” and “responsible oversight” as fundamentally in tension. This perspective is challenged by Pope Leo XIV, who emphasized at the Builders AI Forum that the question is not solely about what AI can do but who we are becoming through the technologies we build. This framing shifts the discourse from a purely utilitarian perspective to one that considers human identity and flourishing.
Catholic social teaching insists that authentic development must encompass both human flourishing and economic dynamism. As the Holy Father articulated, “Technological innovation can be a form of participation in the divine act of creation,” carrying ethical and spiritual weight, as each design choice reflects a vision of humanity.
Child Protection and Local Regulation
Child protection remains a major ethical concern. The administration has committed to ensuring that child safety protections are not compromised, explicitly exempting state laws related to child safety from preemption. However, enforcement capacity is a significant worry.
State attorneys general have been at the forefront of child protection efforts in the digital space, often moving quickly and effectively due to their local knowledge and relationships. A national framework, despite its good intentions, cannot replicate this nuanced relational capacity. The exploitation of children online is a pressing issue that requires immediate and localized responses.
Balancing Regulation and Innovation
The tech industry often argues that regulation stifles innovation. While poorly designed regulations can create perverse incentives, some arguments for leniency merely seek impunity, leading to exploitation documented at various conferences. Examples include sexual extortion, forced labor, and algorithmic discrimination.
A balanced national framework must include:
- Transparency requirements to allow independent researchers and affected communities to understand AI systems without revealing proprietary details.
- Accountability mechanisms to ensure responsibility when AI systems cause harm.
- Investment in formation, fostering a moral understanding among engineers, executives, and policymakers.
- Ongoing engagement with communities most affected by AI technologies.
- Recognition that “innovation” divorced from ethical responsibility does not constitute authentic development.
A Vision for the Future
The Church’s vision is not one of resistance but a radical approach that directs technology towards the integral development of the human person. This requires shared infrastructure—open, interoperable, and governed by the communities it serves.
The question remains: how do we measure success in the AI race? It is not merely about technological advancement but about the kind of society being built and who might be left behind. Pope Leo XIV’s prayer for collaboration to create AI that reflects divine design serves as a guiding principle for all regulatory frameworks.
