Federal AI Action Plan RFI - AI Analysis of Private Sector Responses

Private sector responses to the federal AI Action Plan RFI reveal a strong desire for robust government leadership, data security, and a focus on innovation. Respondents included technology companies that develop and sell AI technologies, but also included a broad swath of other kinds of companies that might internally use, externally deliver, build upon or be affected by advances in AI.

Industry respondents urge the federal government to take an active role in shaping national AI policy, fostering public-private partnerships, and setting clear standards. The sector emphasizes the importance of secure, reliable infrastructure and models, while also recognizing the operational and energy demands of scaling AI. Responses are generally optimistic about AI’s transformative potential but are realistic about barriers (cost, standards, skills, energy, regulatory confusion). Balancing ambition with pragmatism, the private sector supports investment in innovation ecosystems, resilient infrastructure, and the adoption of national and international standards. Security, risk management, and infrastructure needs are recurring concerns, alongside calls for partnership and shared progress.

The sentiment analysis for the private sector feedback illustrates a balance between optimism, analysis, and concern. The majority of responses (60%) was positive/proactive, with an emphasis on potential, partnership, and progress. Interestingly, this was the smallest proportion of positive sentiment among all of the categories of respondents, with the exceptions of individual members of the general public. A bit more than a third (35%) of the responses were analytical/neutral, providing input on requirements, regulatory needs, and best practices. A small portion of responses (~5%) expressed concern or criticism, with those generally aimed at calling for improved security, standards, and risk management in the context of AI.

The following points represent the most frequently cited recommendations from private sector organizations, emphasizing what companies believe is most critical for federal action.

1. Security and Data Protection: Almost every respondent recommends strengthening data security, privacy, and cyber resilience. There is an emphasis on sector-specific security standards (e.g., for energy, healthcare, financial systems) and the need for secure infrastructure as AI scales.

2. Partnership with Government: Widespread calls for federal leadership, not just in regulation but in partnership, funding, and setting clear national strategies. Strong support exists for public-private collaboration—many want the government to enable innovation and reduce regulatory barriers, not just police or restrict industry. Several responses recommend regulatory sandboxes (temporary pilot environments for real-world AI experimentation).

3. Investment in Infrastructure and R&D: The private sector is keen on federal investment in AI infrastructure (compute, data resources, energy supply, secure networks). Many responses mention public funding or incentives for R&D, especially for startups and emerging sectors.

   There’s a call for modernization: upgrading national digital infrastructure and supporting the deployment of AI across industries.

4. National and International Standards: Consistent recommendations suggested development of clear, harmonized national standards for AI safety, interoperability, and accountability.

   Industry wants the U.S. to play a leadership role in international AI standards, to avoid fragmentation and to maintain competitiveness.

5. Innovation and Commercialization Support: Strong advocacy exists for policies that promote AI innovation, such as tax incentives, grant programs, and streamlined IP processes.

   Many mention the need for faster technology transfer and “regulatory clarity” so businesses know how to comply and scale up safely.

6. Workforce, Skills, and Talent Pipelines: Numerous responses call for workforce training, upskilling, and reskilling (in both AI development and safe deployment). Industry also seeks partnerships with universities to align curricula with AI labor market needs, something that the federal government could incentivize or assist with.

7. Sector-Specific Use Cases: Responses highlight AI’s unique challenges and opportunities across sectors—including energy (very prominent), supply chain/logistics, finance, health, and even fisheries/ocean. Requests of this type, while diverse, seek government support tailored to the unique needs of these critical infrastructure sectors.

Several distinctive findings emerged in the analysis of industry responses. Energy and compute needs are top-of-mind. These needs were referred to far more in the private sector responses than in input from other groups. Concerns about the sustainability, cost, and national supply of energy for AI are prominent, with requests for both investment and regulation to address these challenges. The concept of regulatory “sandboxes” to enable experimentation was advocated in several responses as a way of spurring innovation while managing risk by establishing sandboxes where companies can trial new AI systems in a controlled environment with relaxed rules. (This might also imply a tacit acknowledgement that some rules governing the use of AI may be inevitable.) Access to high-quality government data sets is a recurring need, and some frustrations exist with current processes that restrict the private sector’s ability to innovate using government-funded data or research. Finally, industry recognizes the importance of AI to national security, in contexts that relate to protection of supply chains, energy, and digital infrastructure. Outpacing international competitors (notably China) is a priority, and some responses acknowledge policy issues around potential export controls related to AI.