OpenAI pushes a pro-growth AI agenda ahead of 2028, raising the stakes for workers and voters

OpenAI’s top global affairs executive is urging U.S. policymakers to start shaping artificial intelligence around the 2028 election, arguing that the next presidential race could become a defining political moment for the technology and its economic impact.

In a new essay reported by TechCrunch, Chris Lehane frames AI as a force that could reshape jobs, education, safety rules and investment decisions well before voters head to the polls, and he calls for policies that help ordinary people share in the gains rather than simply absorb the disruption.

What OpenAI is trying to do now

Lehane, OpenAI’s chief global affairs officer, is not waiting for the 2028 campaign to force an AI debate. According to TechCrunch, he is trying to influence the policy ground rules in advance, making the case that politicians should respond to public anxiety over AI instead of merely repeating anti-AI rhetoric.

The central argument in his essay is that AI’s economic impact should be treated as a major national policy issue, in the same broad sense that Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal reoriented federal thinking around recovery, labor and public investment. Lehane does not present AI as a narrow technology-policy question. He casts it as something that could shape the economy, education system and labor market all at once.

That framing matters because it suggests OpenAI wants the political conversation to move beyond whether AI should be allowed at all. The company appears to be pushing toward a debate over how AI gains are distributed, which rules should govern deployment and what trade-offs lawmakers should accept in exchange for rapid growth.

Five priorities, one larger message

TechCrunch reports that Lehane’s essay lays out five policy priorities spanning worker protections, education, AI safety and data center development. The details matter less than the direction: OpenAI is presenting itself as supportive of safeguards and public benefit, while still arguing for the infrastructure and flexibility needed to scale AI quickly.

Among the proposals highlighted by TechCrunch are incentives for AI skills, easier access to capital and employee ownership or profit-sharing. Lehane also emphasizes the need for stronger AI safety rules, independent evaluations, public oversight and even kill-switch authority. On education, he argues against excluding AI from classrooms, warning that doing so could widen inequality between wealthy and rural students.

He also backs age-appropriate protections for AI companions used by minors, placing child safety at the center of his policy pitch. In the essay’s telling, a broad social compact around AI should include both opportunity and guardrails.

Why it matters

This is about more than one executive’s policy memo. OpenAI is one of the most influential companies in AI, and its public positions can shape how lawmakers, advocates and investors talk about the technology. When a company with that reach tries to define the terms of debate before a presidential cycle begins, it is effectively trying to set the frame for the next phase of regulation.

For workers, the stakes are obvious. AI is already associated with anxiety over displacement, wage pressure and changing job requirements. Lehane’s emphasis on training, ownership and profit-sharing is an attempt to answer that anxiety with a pro-growth message. But critics say the package stops short of hard guarantees.

For communities where large data centers are planned or expanded, the issue is even more immediate. TechCrunch reports that Lehane portrays data centers as jobs-and-tax-revenue projects, even as local backlash has grown around power use, land use and community impact. Those projects are increasingly tied to how AI companies want to expand, and to whether local residents see a fair return.

For voters, the 2028 election could become a referendum not just on AI regulation, but on whether the technology’s benefits and burdens are being allocated fairly. That is why OpenAI’s attempt to enter the debate early is significant: the company is not waiting for the campaign season to begin before arguing that AI policy should be central to the national conversation.

How did this become a political fight?

The push comes after a period in which OpenAI’s policy posture has drawn scrutiny from researchers and critics who say the company’s positions shift depending on its needs at the moment. TechCrunch quotes Kate Brennan of the AI Now Institute, who argues that the new rhetoric marks a departure from OpenAI’s earlier emphasis.

“This is written by a private company that is trying to advocate for policies for its own benefit.”

Brennan’s criticism is not just about tone. She says last year OpenAI focused on faster AI development, fewer regulatory barriers and more infrastructure. The contrast suggests a company that is now trying to present itself as more safety-minded and socially responsive while still protecting the conditions it wants for growth.

That tension is visible in the background TechCrunch lays out. OpenAI opposed California SB 1047 in 2024, a bill that would have imposed stronger risk and shutdown requirements on some AI systems. Later, the company shifted and backed some state safety laws while showing openness to embedded independent evaluators. The change does not erase the earlier fight; instead, it reinforces the sense that OpenAI is trying to move with the policy weather rather than simply follow one fixed doctrine.

What critics say is missing

The main criticism from Brennan and other skeptics is not that the essay ignores workers, safety or education. It is that the proposals do not bind OpenAI, or the industry, to share AI wealth in a guaranteed way or to pay the costs of displacement.

In Brennan’s view, the policy package rests on the assumption that people should trust AI companies to produce broad benefits if given enough room to grow. TechCrunch reports that she called the rhetoric a break from the past and questioned whether it truly centers the public interest.

“It is ahistorical at best and harmful at worst.”

The criticism captures a deeper dispute over political legitimacy. Can a private company credibly write the rules for a technology that will affect labor markets, education and civic life while also profiting from it? OpenAI’s opponents say the answer should be no, or at least not without stronger enforceable safeguards and clearer obligations.

Data centers, jobs and the China argument

One of the clearest flashpoints in Lehane’s essay is data center development. TechCrunch says he frames these facilities as engines of jobs and tax revenue, even though many communities have pushed back against them.

That argument taps into a broader reality: AI needs massive infrastructure, and that infrastructure is increasingly a local political issue. Data centers consume land and energy and can alter community planning decisions, which is why they have become a focus of criticism well beyond the tech sector.

Lehane also warns that data center moratoriums could weaken the United States in its competition with China. This is one of the essay’s sharper political claims, because it turns what looks like a local zoning fight into a national-security and economic-competition argument. He goes further, according to TechCrunch, likening support for a moratorium to the 2002 Iraq war authorization vote.

That comparison is clearly meant to elevate the stakes and to make hesitation sound dangerous. It also shows how aggressively AI companies are trying to recast infrastructure opposition as a strategic threat rather than a legitimate local concern.

How is OpenAI talking about AI and the 2028 election?

OpenAI is treating 2028 as the moment when AI becomes politically unavoidable. According to TechCrunch, Lehane says the election could be a defining moment for AI, and he is urging policymakers to act before campaign rhetoric hardens around simplistic pro- or anti-AI positions.

The company’s strategy appears to be to occupy the middle ground first. That means acknowledging public fear, promising benefits for workers and students, and supporting some safety oversight — while still defending the rapid buildout of the systems and infrastructure needed to stay competitive.

In political terms, that is a smart move. It gives OpenAI language it can use with both lawmakers and the public. But it also creates risk, because the more the company presents itself as a guardian of the public interest, the more closely its past conduct will be examined.

Background and context

OpenAI is a leading AI company, and its policy positions draw scrutiny because of the company’s influence over how AI is built and deployed. That makes any public essay from one of its senior policy figures more than a routine opinion piece. It becomes a signal about where the company wants the regulatory debate to go.

The broader political backdrop is already charged. AI has moved from a technical topic to a national economic issue, with lawmakers, workers and advocates debating whether the technology will widen inequality or create new opportunities. At the same time, data centers have become a flashpoint over energy use, taxes, jobs and land use, giving AI expansion a visible local footprint.

There is also a longer policy history behind the current fight. The New Deal reference in Lehane’s essay is not accidental. The Roosevelt-era programs were designed to respond to economic crisis with public action, worker protections and a broader social contract. By invoking that era, Lehane is trying to place AI in the lineage of major economic restructuring rather than one-off tech regulation.

That historical comparison is ambitious, but it also reveals OpenAI’s pitch: do not think of AI only as a threat to be constrained. Think of it as a national project whose gains should be organized and shared.

What happens next

The open questions are substantial. TechCrunch says it is not yet clear which specific policies OpenAI wants lawmakers to adopt in 2027 and 2028, or whether the company will back mandatory worker protections rather than voluntary incentives.

Another unresolved issue is whether OpenAI can reconcile this new safety-heavy rhetoric with its previous opposition to regulation. Critics are already drawing attention to that shift, and the company will likely face pressure to explain how its current support for oversight fits with its earlier resistance to laws like SB 1047.

There is also the question of whether AI and data centers actually become major voting issues in 2028. If they do, OpenAI may have succeeded in helping define the debate early. If they do not, the essay may be remembered as an ambitious attempt to steer a conversation that voters and politicians were not yet ready to have.

TechCrunch says OpenAI did not respond to a request for details on the proposals, which leaves the company’s next move unclear. For now, Lehane’s essay is less a finished policy blueprint than a public opening bid: a case for making AI pro-worker, pro-safety and pro-growth at the same time.

By the numbers

Timeline

• 2024: OpenAI opposed California AI safety bill SB 1047.
• Last year: OpenAI sought to limit state regulation of AI, then later shifted on some safety positions.
• Nov. 4, 2026: TechCrunch published its report on Lehane’s essay and the company’s policy push.

What readers should watch

• Whether OpenAI identifies specific legislative priorities for 2027-2028.
• Whether the company supports binding worker protections or only incentive-based measures.
• Whether lawmakers treat data centers as a jobs issue, an energy issue or a political liability.
• Whether AI safety becomes a central theme in the 2028 presidential campaign.