US voters oppose artificial intelligence and the influence of Big Tech, advocates of AI development fear that the US could lose its technological edge to China.
Gina Raimondo worries about losing more than that.
Raimondo — a former secretary of Commerce, governor of Rhode Island and sometime patron saint of pro-business Democrats — warns that leaders in Washington and Silicon Valley need to show American workers they can win in an AI economy or risk crippling political instability and stifling innovation.
“If we rush forward blindly to lead the world in technology, but leave the American people behind, we will not beat China,” Raimondo says. “We’re going to have slowed down our automation. We’re going to be undermining our democracy. And eventually you’re going to have a federal law that restricts the development of AI.”
Make no mistake – Raimondo wants to win the race for technological supremacy. But, he says, “You don’t beat China if you have a bad domestic economy, politics and society.”
That’s why this month Raimondo gave up running for president in 2028 and teamed up with Eric Holcomb, the former Republican governor of Indiana, to launch a largely funded nonprofit to help workers get to the age of AI.
The organization, RAISE US, has received support from a list of large private companies (Amazon, OpenAI, Anthropic and Microsoft, to name a few) and a group of bipartisan governors. It’s piloting workforce resilience programs in several states, from blue Maryland to deep-MAGA Arkansas. A policy compass is certainly more sensitive than the populist prescriptions for the use of force that are gaining in popularity,such as halting data center construction.
Calling the companies supporting RAISE US a “coalition of the willing,” Raimondo said industry and government have a lot to prove to American workers. Some CEOs understand that better than others, he said, without naming names.
In a joint interview with POLITICO Magazine, Raimondo and Holcomb said they will step away from front-line politics to build RAISE US. However if they succeed, they may soon wield a different kind of power in the 2028 war of ideas.
That’s because they’re teaming up with potential presidential candidates, including Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore — rising stars on the right and left who could have the biggest impact on how voters view AI.
That work is starting, Holcomb said, with a visible impact on helping workers navigate the new world of technology.
“We will look forward to seeing the results every day.”
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Secretary Raimondo,you told my colleague Christine Muithat one of the reasons for you to work at the government level is because governors can move quickly. What needs to happen before the end of 2026 to build the momentum you need?
GR:You’re talking to two former governors, so we’re a little bit biased – but it’s just a fact, in today’s political world, governors can be bipartisan. Governors have to deliver, and therefore tend to be more practical. We want to take advantage of that.
I think we already have a bit of momentum. We’ve come out of the gate with half a billion dollars and several big companies are backing us. We already have four governors registered with specific projects. In fact, we had a team yesterday in Maryland all day working on the ground with people in Maryland on a Year of Service program (a paid opportunity to increase civic engagement among youth). We want to start showing results immediately in Maryland, Arkansas, Utah and Connecticut, and grow from there.
EH:Not to be hyperbolic or exaggerating, but speed kills –slowlyspeed kills. We don’t have time to wait or worry or get analysis paralysis. Governors are connected to track trends and trends, and make sure you’re moving in the right direction every day, not every year.
We will be following up on our projects. Gina mentioned Maryland. I’ve also been in Arkansas, in Little Rock, and we’re looking forward to accelerating the launch program that will better connect employers and employees with a stream of skills needed for the jobs of today and tomorrow. We’ll look forward to seeing the results each day, and then the trends that come from that. But we are not waiting for the end of the year to report the State of the State.
When you say follow up every day, what does that follow up look like? What are you looking at on your phone? How do you receive that data, and what are the metrics?
EH:I’m a businessman from Indiana, and we had some workforce development programs that were very successful in terms of job training, employer training grants, skills for incumbents. Workforce readiness grants had 63,000-plus Hoosiers enrolled in the program to earn qualifications and connect to better jobs.
We were monitoring it in real time.
You have support from some of the biggest companies in the US. There are also some big names in the technology space not on the list. What should we read into that? You see Amazon, OpenAI, Anthropic – there’s a couple really big ones that aren’t there.
GR:This is a union of the willing. I hope and expect others to join, but these are the leaders.
The people who have stepped up, Amazon, Microsoft, Open AI, Anthropic, immediately took advantage of this – knowing that it was the beginning, knowing that we will have to solve things together, because there is a question of collective action here. No one company will be able to solve this alone. These are the people who stepped up to lead, taking a little risk when starting out.
To what extent have you found people at the leadership level of AI companies or AI-forward companies open to self-criticism and constructive feedback about how they engage in the public sphere?
GR:It’s a combination. A CEO is like anyone else. Some of them are very focused on their business and their profit and their products. And the rest is that,togetherthey feel like it’s their job to see the big picture and do what’s best for America, American workers, the American economy in the long run.
I am reminded of the efforts over the past decade to build bipartisan, multi-sector support for solutions to the energy transition or climate change. It’s one thing to get big companies and big political figures on board on day one, and it’s another thing to sustain that over time. Have you looked at some of those past examples so that mistakes don’t happen again?
EH: Yes. And we will not try to overcomplicate this. We will lead by example, and I think our previous work in the public service has demonstrated that – and why people on both sides of the political spectrum trust us to continue that trend and hold up our end of the bargain. I firmly believe that for America to be successful and victorious, it will be – as it always has been – on the backs of the American worker.
Does it mean that you two should stay out of fan politics while you are doing this?
EH:It doesn’t mean, for me, to stay out of it. But I’m focusing on the job I have right now. I will not get involved in front and center stage politics.
GR:I agree with that. I do this all the time.
You asked about recent models. When people ask what the analogy is for RAISE US, the closest analogy I can think of is the Economic Development Council. It was created in the 1940s, when World War II was ending. Business leaders and CEOs were worried that millions of GIs were coming back to America and needed work, and at the same time the demand for war was diminishing. Where would all the GIs work?
It was employer-led, and some companies – Studebaker, GE, Dow, the big companies of the time – were very hands-on, low-key, smart, as Eric said a few minutes ago. And it was very successful. There was no increase in unemployment when the war ended, as everyone thought there would be. They started a movement across the country, which is what we hope to create: a movement to define what it means to be a good employer in the age of AI.
I have no doubt we will make mistakes. But I also think we’re going to show, over the next several years, real, practical, grassroots incentives for companies, new ways to support people as they transition out of work, hopefully a service model, because we all think that AI is squeezing entry-level people. Eventually, we hope, we can have an apprenticeship program for small-scale manufacturing.
At some point when Congress decides to act in a bipartisan way, there will be national AI legislation. And I hope they look at the work that we’ve done and take the things that worked and put them into federal law.
It’s hard to imagine now, but can you imagine a world where there is a true AI hopeful on the presidential ticket in 2028?
GR:Gosh, that feels so far away. I don’t know.
EH:It’s the last thing on my priority list to spend time thinking about, when we’re so down in what we’re doing. Hopefully what can lead to that hope is when we flip the script and start using AI to help the individual continue to improve and have more choice and more affordability. When that starts to happen, then the situation can change for the better.
Secretary, I saw that you, a few weeks ago, clearly said that you will not run for president in 2028. Was that a preparation for this announcement?
GR:Yes. I want people to know this is what I do. It is out of politics, but also working with the government.
Job training is not enough to solve this problem, if it is going to be as big as I think. Just saying, “Oh, we’re going to hire a bunch of construction workers to build data centers” – that’s great, but that’s not enough to prepare.
I didn’t want anyone to think, “Oh, he’s doing this to run for office.” That’s not what this is about.
EH:What drives me is simple – good policy makes good politics. We focus on the implementation of the policy, and we will leave it to others, we hope, to point out the good news that comes from it.
There’s a lot of talk about beating China on AI, and I’m not sure your average worker is too concerned with beating China on a geostrategic level, if they don’t feel they have an advantage in every way to beat China.
GR:I’ll tell you what it means to hit China – and what it doesn’t mean. Beating China means being ahead in technology, having better chips and better designs. It also means having a stable political image in the United States, a strong economy in the United States, a prosperous population with broad employment, a functioning democracy. That’s how you beat China.
I can promise you, if we rush ahead blindly to lead the world in technology, but leave the American people behind, we will not beat China. We will have automated our descent. We will have weakened our democracy. And eventually you will have a federal law that restricts the development of AI.
I want to beat China too. I want to be clear about that. You don’t beat China if you have a bad domestic economy, politics and society. You have to find a way to do both. And I believe that we can.
EH:There is no pressure.
