OpenAI's Lehane Frames 2028 Election as AI's New Deal Moment

By Grace Kim

OpenAI's top policy executive wants politicians to build an AI agenda for the 2028 presidential election now — and he's borrowing framing from the 1930s New Deal to make his case. Chris Lehane, OpenAI's chief global affairs officer, argues in a new essay that the next election could be a defining moment for AI, and that lawmakers should address Americans' concerns about the technology rather than pay lip service to anti-AI sentiment and data center backlash.

Lehane compares AI's potential to reshape the economy to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal — the 1930s federal programs enacted after industrialization and the Great Depression shattered the old economic order. Americans today feel similarly anxious about losing control over their economic futures, he writes, and he urges politicians to find a "compelling third path" that lets people share in AI's benefits. His essay lays out five policy priorities, spanning worker protections, education, AI safety, and data center development.

The essay landed right after a stunning Democratic victory in the midterm elections, in which Democrats flipped control of Congress amid widespread voter frustration over the cost of living.

What changed in OpenAI's messaging?

Kate Brennan, who leads AI and corporate power policy at the AI Now Institute, told TechCrunch that Lehane's rhetoric marks a notable shift from OpenAI's 2024-era policy agenda, which focused on accelerating AI development, reducing regulatory barriers, and expanding infrastructure.

The original New Deal established protections for workers and placed constraints on corporate power. Many of Lehane's proposals, by contrast, would encourage wider AI adoption and support the infrastructure expansion companies like OpenAI need to grow. How his vision would hold AI companies accountable for the economic disruption their technology could create is less clear.

"Invoking a New Deal metaphor is to invoke state capacity to actually benefit the public," Brennan said. "This is written by a private company that is trying to advocate for policies for its own benefit. It is ahistorical at best and harmful at worst."

AI wasn't a dominant midterm issue, but opposition to data centers emerged as a major bipartisan concern in several races. And affordability is already shaping the 2028 conversation as Americans grapple with inflation, tariffs, and rising living costs — with voters worried about data centers hiking electricity bills, AI replacing jobs, and economic gains flowing only to a handful of wealthy companies.

What does Lehane actually propose?

On the tax code, Lehane suggests:

• incentives for workers to learn AI skills
• easier capital access for entrepreneurs
• new approaches to employee ownership and profit-sharing

Those aren't binding requirements ensuring workers share in AI-generated wealth, or that companies pay the costs of displacing workers. Brennan noted the gap. "I was struck by how much of this policy is for a future…that is already predicated on mass AI adoption and AI benefitting society, which we have yet to see," she said. "All of it is predicated on benefitting from AI's upside."

Brennan said she'd rather see a revised corporate tax rate, tax incentives for hiring humans rather than automating jobs, and measures keeping companies from amassing outsize market power.

On data centers, Lehane acknowledges local concerns but emphasizes construction jobs and local tax revenue. He warns that politicians backing a data center moratorium could jeopardize America's lead over China — comparing that stance to the 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq war.

Where does the safety agenda stand?

Lehane makes child safety and education central to his agenda, stressing age-appropriate protections around AI companions for minors. He warns against keeping AI out of classrooms, arguing that could widen inequality between wealthy students and "children in rural communities." That argument takes for granted that AI improves learning — a claim critics say remains unproven and deserves more examination than more funding or individualized attention from human teachers.

He also calls for enforceable AI safety standards, independent evaluations, public oversight, and the ability to restrict AI systems or use a kill switch. Recent studies show OpenAI and other labs haven't published comprehensive plans for what they'd do if a model escaped human control.

Brennan called these stances "disingenuous," pointing to OpenAI's record. In 2024, OpenAI opposed California's AI safety bill, SB 1047, which would have mandated catastrophic risk evaluations and shutdown capabilities. Last year, OpenAI also sought to limit state regulation, arguing states could undermine American innovation. The company has since shifted some positions, backing several state safety laws and saying it would be open to independent evaluators embedded in the company.

Lehane also argues people should maintain control over consequential decisions made using AI. That raises the question of what human control looks like in a society where people are increasingly required to use AI in education, work, health care, and government.

TechCrunch reached out to OpenAI for specifics on Lehane's proposals; the company did not respond by publication time. Whether his policies redistribute power or entrench it is the question 2028 will answer.