OpenAI is already trying to shape the 2028 election

What did Chris Lehane publish?

OpenAI chief global affairs officer Chris Lehane published a personal essay on November 4 titled "2028: The AI Election" on the company's OpenAI Global Affairs Substack. In it, he argues that the next presidential election will be defined by how candidates address artificial intelligence, comparing the moment to the economic transformation that preceded Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s.

Lehane observes that Americans today feel similarly anxious about losing control over their economic futures as they did during the Great Depression era. "AI is advancing so fast that the issues defining the campaign may not yet be in view," he writes. He urges politicians to find a "compelling third path" that allows people to share in AI's benefits rather than simply opposing the technology or letting it advance without guardrails.

The essay was published on the same day Democrats swept the 2026 midterm elections, a result that was partly driven by voter frustration over data center development and cost-of-living concerns. Lehane had previewed similar themes in private conversations with prospective 2028 candidates, according to a Politico report published November 2.

What are the five policy priorities?

Lehane's essay lays out five areas where he believes candidates must develop positions: AI safety and human control, tax policy for the AI economy, child safety and education, data center development, and worker protections.

On AI safety, Lehane argues for enforceable safety standards, independent assessments, and the ability to restrict or shut down systems when necessary. "Decisions about acceptable risk must be subject to public oversight," he writes. He also insists that AI is "a machine, not a person" and that public policy must preserve human judgment over consequential decisions.

On tax policy, he proposes incentives for workers to learn AI skills, easier capital access for entrepreneurs, and new approaches to employee ownership and profit-sharing. However, he stops short of endorsing binding requirements that would ensure workers share in AI-generated wealth or that companies pay the costs of displacing workers.

On data centers, Lehane acknowledges local concerns while emphasizing construction jobs and tax revenue, and warns that politicians who support data center moratoriums could jeopardize America's lead over China. He compares that stance to the 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq war.

What do critics say?

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 policy agenda last year, which focused on accelerating AI development and reducing regulatory barriers. She described the New Deal framing as "ahistorical at best and harmful at worst."

"This is written by a private company that is trying to advocate for policies for its own benefit," Brennan said. "I was struck by how much of this policy is for a future that is already predicated on mass AI adoption and AI benefiting society, which we have yet to see."

Brennan also pointed to OpenAI's history of opposing legislation designed to impose the very safety measures Lehane now endorses. In 2024, OpenAI opposed California's AI safety bill SB 1047, which would have mandated catastrophic risk evaluations and shutdown capabilities. The company has since shifted some positions, backing several state safety laws and expressing openness to independent evaluators embedded in the company.

How does the 2028 context differ from 2026?

Lehane argues that the 2028 election will be fought in a different AI world than the 2026 midterms. While AI wasn't a dominant issue in the midterms, opposition to data centers emerged as a major bipartisan concern. Lehane notes that by early October, one in five ads aired by Democratic candidates mentioned data centers, with little room for candidates to be "for" AI infrastructure.

By 2028, Lehane predicts that half of Americans will already use an AI tool at least a few times a week, and regular users tend to trust it more than those who rarely use it. "Concerns about safety, jobs, or economic disruption won't disappear," he writes, "but more voters in 2028 will have firsthand experience of what AI makes possible."

The essay notes that by a 25-point margin, voters prefer someone who leads their party in shaping AI policy over someone who follows it. Despite safety concerns, 66% support continued AI development, including 53% who want stronger safeguards, while 24% favor a pause.

Lehane also draws a direct line between data center opposition in 2026 and the broader political challenge for AI. He warns that treating data centers as a proxy for all AI concerns is a mistake, because the technology's benefits and risks go far beyond where servers are built. "For the first time since 1992, 2028 will feature a truly wide-open Democratic primary," he writes, "presenting an opportunity for a long-overdue debate about America's social contract."

What questions does Lehane pose for candidates?

Lehane poses five questions he says prospective 2028 candidates must answer: How will you keep AI safe and people in control? Will the tax code help Americans participate in the AI economy or concentrate its gains? Are you protecting kids and preparing workers for what's coming? How will you ensure AI is built by and for people? And what is your vision for keeping America competitive while addressing community concerns?

The framing is notable for what it omits. Lehane does not propose binding requirements for companies to pay for worker displacement, does not address how to prevent AI market concentration beyond voluntary incentives, and does not grapple with the tension between his call for independent safety oversight and OpenAI's own track record of opposing regulation.

Nevertheless, the essay represents the most detailed public attempt by any major AI company executive to define the terms of political debate around the technology ahead of a presidential election cycle.

Lehane's core argument is that AI gives Americans an opportunity to reclaim agency from large institutions. He positions AI as a tool that could reverse the power imbalance between individuals and the systems that shape their lives, giving people access to expertise once reserved for the powerful. Whether that framing convinces voters who are worried about job displacement and rising electricity bills from data centers is the open question that will define the 2028 campaign.

What is the Republican response?

Lehane notes that Republicans are seen as "taking it on the chin over data centers this cycle" but says the party is having "robust intellectual debates" about how to address AI's impacts on families and markets. The essay does not endorse any party, instead arguing that whichever party nominates a candidate capable of articulating a compelling AI vision will earn a durable mandate.

The essay comes at a moment when both parties are recalibrating their AI positions. The Democratic sweep in the 2026 midterms was partly driven by data center opposition, but the party's coalition includes both labor unions concerned about job displacement and tech-friendly donors who benefit from AI growth. Republicans, meanwhile, must decide whether to embrace AI deregulation as a growth agenda or respond to their own voters' concerns about infrastructure and energy costs.

Lehane's framing deliberately avoids partisan language, presenting AI as a challenge that transcends party lines. But the policy implications of his five priorities — especially on safety regulation, tax policy, and data center permitting — would require legislative action that inevitably becomes partisan.