America's economic future hinges on whether it can outcompete rivals in artificial intelligence, energy, and advanced manufacturing—but policymakers are signaling they won't let European regulators set the terms for American innovation. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told attendees at Axios House D.C. this week that the United States won't allow Europe to become "the arbiter" of regulating American tech companies, a declaration that underscores growing tensions over who controls the rules governing the digital economy.
The event, held in Washington and sponsored by Accenture and Ford, brought together business leaders and policymakers to discuss the next phase of American industrial policy. Their conversations revealed a consensus that the nation's competitiveness depends on strategic investment in critical sectors—and on ensuring that regulatory frameworks serve workers and communities, not just corporate interests.
Energy and Infrastructure Take Center Stage
NYSE Group president Lynn Martin identified AI's biggest economic opportunities in energy and infrastructure, predicting both sectors are positioned for "outsized returns for a longer period of time." Southern Company chair, president and CEO Chris Womack emphasized that U.S. energy demand is growing and the nation needs to commit to building 10 new nuclear plants to meet that demand. These investments could create thousands of jobs while addressing climate concerns, but they'll require sustained public commitment.
Ford Motor Company executive chair Bill Ford warned that most of America's critical minerals currently come from China. The U.S. has these resources, he said, but it doesn't have the proper regulation to develop them. Ford called for a bipartisan industrial policy to compete with China, noting that "having a planning horizon that we can count on makes a huge difference, because our lead times are longer than political lead times." His comments highlight how corporate planning cycles clash with political timelines, potentially leaving workers and communities vulnerable to economic disruption.
Regulatory Battles and Market Access
Commodity Futures Trading Commission chair Michael Selig said the CFTC will defend its authority over prediction markets "all the way up to the Supreme Court" if necessary, as the battle to regulate these markets intensifies. Kalshi co-founder and CEO Tarek Mansour argued that prediction markets are "here to stay" because many people feel traditional financial systems are "rigged against them." That perception—whether accurate or not—reflects broader concerns about economic fairness and access that policymakers can't ignore.
Zillow Group CEO Jeremy Wacksman revealed that the homebuying process has become so complicated that half of Americans cry at some point during the process, according to Zillow's 2022 study. It's a stark reminder that even as leaders debate AI and industrial policy, millions of families struggle with basic economic milestones.
Deployment Over Development
In a View from the Top conversation, Accenture Federal Services CEO Ron Ash warned that the U.S. is in a prototyping bubble. "My biggest concern is that we win this race for developing the best AI technology and we lose the race to deploy it," he said. The comment points to a critical gap between innovation and implementation—a gap that could leave American workers without the benefits of technological advances if deployment prioritizes profit over broad access.
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) raised concerns beyond economics, warning that the Iran war could become this generation's "forever war." He criticized President Trump for using "basically real estate negotiators" in diplomatic talks, saying: "I don't think that you're going to be able to bomb yourself out of this." Meeks' comments underscore how foreign policy decisions can drain resources that might otherwise fund domestic priorities like infrastructure, education, and healthcare.
Why This Matters:
The regulatory standoff between the U.S. and Europe over tech governance will determine whether AI development serves public interests or concentrates power in the hands of a few corporations. If American policymakers reject European-style protections for workers, consumers, and privacy, millions could face job displacement, data exploitation, and widening inequality. The push for industrial policy in critical minerals and energy offers a chance to create good-paying jobs and reduce dependence on authoritarian regimes—but only if regulations prioritize labor standards and environmental protection. Without sustained public investment and democratic oversight, the AI revolution could deepen existing divides rather than lift working families. The choice isn't whether to compete with China and Europe, but whether that competition will be shaped by values of shared prosperity or winner-take-all markets.