Loading summary
Transcript42 lines
- [00:02]
A
On WhatsApp, no one can see or hear your personal messages. Whether it's a voice call message or sending a password to WhatsApp, it's all just this. So whether you're sharing the streaming password in the family chat or trading those late night voice messages that could basically become a podcast, your personal messages stay between you, your friends and your family. No one else, not even us. WhatsApp message privately with everyone.
- [00:35]
B
Hey, welcome back to Politico Tech. I'm your host, Stephen Overle. Republican Senator Todd Young has been on the podcast a couple times before. So I know that he's big on investing in research, in cutting edge technologies like artificial intelligence. But lately that's put him in a position of pushing back against the leader of his own party, President Donald Trump, who in recent months has taken an axe to research funding at federal agencies and universities. So when I sat down with Senator Young earlier this week at the AI Expo in Washington, D.C. an event hosted by the special Competitive Studies Project, I had to ask him about that tension and about international student visas, AI development and more. Here's our live conversation from the event. I'm Stephen Overle. I'm the host of the Politico Tech podcast, joined here with Senator Young of Indiana. Senator, thanks for being here.
- [01:45]
A
Thank you.
- [01:46]
B
I want to open up actually, by going back a year ago. It was about a year ago that you and senators put out an AI roadmap calling for $32 billion a year in AI funding over time. How realistic does that vision that you had feel now?
- [02:04]
A
Actually, the roadmap's incredibly relevant for the uninitiated and there aren't many here in this audience, but myself, Senator Schumer, Mike Grounds and Martin Heinrich spent several months visiting with the world's best minds on AI and sort of cross cutting this whole issue of AI and AI regulation in numerous ways. And we asked a lot of open ended questions, came up with recommendations for Congress, and those are still actionable recommendations. Right? In my mind, we still need to invest more in research and development, for example.
- [02:44]
B
Right.
- [02:44]
A
That's where the real money went in that report. Our private sector will do the vast majority of R and D in this country, which is why it's really important that we restore the R and D provisions in our tax code. We're in the process of trying to do that right now through the reconciliation bill. But China since 2000 has increased their public R&D expenditures 16 fold. They're now number two in the world. This will indeed have broader implications on our ability to compete, it won't be long before they, they actually pass up us on current trend lines if we're not careful. So I mean, that just telescoping into that recommendation in particular demonstrates that we have actionable and important recommendations that are unacted on. It's understandable. However, when you have a new, new administration come in, they are trying to assess exactly what sort of actions they should take, which of those actions can be done administratively and which should involve congressional action and therefore provide more certainty. So I suspect they'll engage with members of Congress very soon. That will be among the areas research and development that I hope we tackle.
- [04:00]
B
Well, that's why I focused in on research and development, because there is a real debate happening right now. You know, the Trump administration has significantly curtailed research funding happening through nih, through nsf, you know, in some instances the lowest level in decades. You've written about this. How does that impact innovation? Does that slow innovation in areas like AI and biotech?
- [04:24]
A
Well, eventually it will. Of course, one of the things this country has done well for generations is invest in talent and then leverage that talent to live on the frontier of exploration and the cutting edge of technology. And then our private sector sort of takes things from there and turns these innovations into valuable services and products. So none of that has changed. It's not been supplanted by a new model. If some are of a mind that a new model is being transitioned into, I think the onus would be on those people to articulate what the new model is. And we haven't heard that. So in the absence of any new model, we have the model that exists and that involves publicly funded research through our universities and colleges, in our various national labs, working with the private sector to come up with new innovations and to scale those innovations that really have promise. And I do think that that model in certain ways can be optimized. I think there have been some priorities that have been funded for the wrong reasons, maybe as part of a broader social agenda as opposed to innovation or national security or economic security. And so I believe that that's how the administration looks at this effort as well. My hope, and this is where I encourage the administration and other stakeholders, my hope is that we can take some efficiency and cost savings and then reinvest those into our national research and technology enterprise, effectively do what every great organization does from time to time, which is to increase your tooth to tail ratio and then become a more effective provider of goods and services.
- [06:21]
B
In your conversations with the administration, have you gotten a sense that there. There is a broader strategy here, that a new kind of framework or formula is coming. I mean, a lot of folks, I think, look at the cuts that are happening and they feel, you know, sudden. They feel a bit haphazard. What have you heard from your conversations there?
- [06:39]
A
There are what I would call lineaments, lineaments of, of a broader strategy. But I have not seen a broader strategy teased out yet. My expectation would be here again that the administration will come up with one. I've taken a stab at it, you know, with a certain measure of humility. I don't pretend it's all right, but one can still access it online. I wrote a blog post, long form, called a Tech page Power Playbook for Donald Trump 2.0. It appeared in the National Interest back in January and involves the key elements of what I feel like a national innovation strategy should be Learning the best lessons from the CHIPS and Science act we need a strong offense that's mostly investing in talent, in research. So invest in ourselves at this time of great competition and become a better version of ourselves. Don't try and become a version of another country, but optimize our very best features through investing in ourselves and focusing institutionally the energy of our key institutions. A strong defense that will involve Export controls Our doctrine on export controls is an evolving doctrine, as it should be. We need a nimble system of export controls and regulations so that our adversaries aren't given the keys to the kingdom, as it were. We stay one step ahead of our adversaries, knowing that they will innovate in response to our restrictions. But that's let's not have unrealistic expectations of what can be accomplished through export controls, but let's not undervalue the importance of them either. And then the last element, I think it's really important, and that's using our diplomats, generally defined, most of whom will be probably within government, within the State Department, but you could imagine them existing elsewhere, and their job is to be connectors, to figure out how we can work together from research down to deployment, including regulatory harmonization and optimization, digital trade, a host of different issues, critical minerals that are best tackled not by ourselves, not by the United States alone, but America first, working with all kinds of other countries and partners. This is essentially the best of the Chips in Science act, scaled up and applied to other areas. And I will continue to amplify the importance of these lessons in that blog post. For those who have any interest in hitting on the Hyperlink and spending 15 minutes of your life looking through it, you'll see a series of concrete recommendations at the end as well.
- [09:31]
B
And I mean, right now, you know, as you were saying earlier, government funding is the purview of Congress. You have an opportunity to shape here what this administration does. Should we expect pushback from you on these cuts to funding, or should we expect to see some imposition of a new framework on the administration?
- [09:50]
A
Well, I think for anyone who's been particularly attentive to, you know, me and things coming out of my office and my media appearances has seen me pre bait seeing where some of the administration might be headed with respect to research funding and encouraging them to do exactly what I have suggested, which is let's not let up on research. In fact, consistent with the vision of the Chips and Science act, we ought to be doubling public research right now. We ought to be doing a lot more now. Let's at the same time, if you hope to build a consensus for that vision, let's admit the waste, the abuse, some of the embarrassing projects, a culture of entitlement that has existed by some of our researchers. And it doesn't take many.
- [10:39]
B
Right.
- [10:40]
A
And so if you can at once deal with some of the excesses that cause us to lose support for public research and then make arguments, national security and economic security arguments mostly, but also broader quality of life arguments for the importance of public research, I think that puts us in a really good spot. So I'll continue to make the argument. I generally do it in a, in a way that is not super provocative. I don't think I've been particularly provocative, but I am direct. And so my presentation tends to be like today. And it doesn't generate the cacophony of retweets and overheated online conversation that maybe a less diplomatic presentation would offer. But I do think it actually will in the end yield more effectiveness because you won't be tuned out by those who think that you're not understanding of what they're trying to accomplish as well.
- [11:33]
B
Well, let me test the limits of your provocativeness here with I want to ask you about the war on Harvard right now and on universities. I mean, you mentioned here sort of some researchers and a sense of entitlement. I'm curious how we tease that out.
- [11:49]
A
Because probably a very limited number, by the way, but it exists as in every field, but not every field relies so directly on public largess, public investment.
- [12:00]
B
Right, Right.
- [12:00]
A
There's a special responsibility to behave in a way consistent with the expectations of the people who help fund your projects.
- [12:08]
B
And what are those Expectations because it feels to some, I think like an expectation of, you know, allegiance to an administration or to the president, you know, rather than academic integrity.
- [12:18]
A
You know, that's a choice. I understand that. I do understand how people could rationally draw that conclusion based on how they see the facts and based on what they're reading and the analysis out there. But I think a fair minded person could also say, you know, universities are objectively left of center, some very left of center institutions and rank and file Americans who help keep this country running and whose support is necessary to maintain programs like research funding. They want to know their sensibilities aren't being offended by those who benefit from national investments. They want to know if that their kids might actually have a shot to get into these universities. So I think it's, you know, at every turn there should be a rethink from leadership within these institutions about how they're arguing for federal research and then more broadly things like policies related to admissions into the universities. You know, is it going to depend on silly legacy criteria? Is going to be based on race or ethnicity? I think there are important questions about socioeconomic diversity that, that need to be addressed. So I didn't anticipate coming here to discuss this. These are all very important. I'm highly comfortable discussing these directly. I hope everyone out there is comfortable with me discussing them because this is like democracy. But I'm finding that doesn't always.
- [13:47]
B
Well, there's a lot of intersection, I think, with innovation and you know, how these investments happen. One area I want to ask you about too, which is, you know, you're a China hawk, right? You're a lot of your policy and how you look at the world is through keeping the US competitive vis a vis China.
- [14:03]
A
Yes, sir.
- [14:04]
B
Right now with the crackdown on student visas, you know, I think a lot of folks in tech are worried that that will impact the STEM pipeline. You know, foreign students, foreign academics coming to the U.S. do you worry about that? Is this a good thing?
- [14:19]
A
I do worry about that. I think our country wants to continue to attract the best in class from around the world to participate in research. But at the same time I think most fair minded observers would say, but don't you have concerns, especially with the dual use nature of so many modern technologies from biotech to artificial intelligence to drone technology and, and so much more. Don't you have concerns with visitors from adversary countries potentially having ulterior motives disproportionately? And it's not an unfair question for some. It may be, it may come from a position of racial animus or ethnic bias. But the fact that you might have some people with that horrible motivation who would use it as a pretext to keep others out doesn't mean we shouldn't have serious national security conversations about who should have access to best in class research projects to cutting edge research opportunities. And then when you're choosing between two relatively equally qualified doctorate or post doctorate students, should you give special dispensation to those who hail from countries that are friendly or at least partners of the United States as opposed to outright adversaries of the United States? I think these are very serious questions. I tend to fall on the side of economic and national security in my answers, much more so than I did even a decade ago. And I think the important steps we've taken on the Hill are not yet sufficient, but very important in terms of tightening up some of the federally funded research that we have and making sure there's less IP theft, etc. And so on. The Hoover Dam wasn't built in a day and the GMC Sierra lineup wasn't built overnight. Like every American achievement building, the Sierra 1500 heavy duty and EV was the result of dedication, a dedication to mastering the art of engineering. That's what this country has done for 250 years and what GMC has done for over 100. We are professional grade. Visit GMC.com to learn more. Assembled in Flint, Hamtronic, Michigan and Fort Wayne, Indiana of US and globally sourced parts.
- [17:01]
B
You know, I want to talk about a potential barrier to innovation, particularly when it comes to AI. And that has to do with energy. You know, we know that right now energy is a fundamental ingredient of success with AI. There are concerns about energy demands from AI right now. The Senate has the big beautiful bill to consider. There's a lot of provisions in there for clean energy tax credits and other clean energy projects. Where are your priorities with that legislation and how it funds energy of the future?
- [17:32]
A
Well, I'm radically pragmatic and what that means is I recognize that we have had some despite that what I perceive to be as some of the defect facts of the Inflation Reduction Act. Right. Like we hadn't thought about our dependencies that would be created upstream for critical minerals, mineral processing etc by this great leap forward to electrification for example. That's one of many dependencies that were created by this aside from the well meaning effort to mitigate climate change and ensure we we stay ahead of of China with respect to some of these key industries. I get that. But investments have been deployed They've been deployed in, in across the industrial Midwest in large measure. I represent one of those states. I've seen it up close and personal. It's impressive what's happening. It's wonderful that we have Americans employed in some of these sectors. I hope it leads to continued innovation and success by these great American companies working with our capital markets. And so like I want to keep that going. Right. That said, there, there are other important priorities, growth generally but for from affordable housing to research and development that we need to make sure are memorialized within our tax reform package. And to fit it all in, we're going to have to circumscribe and right size some of these provisions. And I would anticipate that's where we end up in terms of specifics. I don't know if we end up copying what the House did or if instead we adopt some slightly different provisions, but I believe that's where we're headed. A principled compromise.
- [19:20]
B
Do you think that your party, Republicans should be more open to renewables and you know, whether that's solar or wind? I, I talk to folks who say that, you know, renewables are one of the cheapest, fastest way to stand up new energy projects which we need for AI.
- [19:38]
A
Yes.
- [19:38]
B
Is that important? Do you think so?
- [19:40]
A
My. Yes. I don't want to adopt the premise that Republicans are a. Opposed to them.
- [19:46]
B
Okay.
- [19:46]
A
That's not really precise to be precise and fair. That's not what you ask. You didn't characterize us as. As opposed. You say, should we be more open? Some might infer from that that you're suggesting that we're not open. And, and I don't want them to infer that. Right. So what I would propose is the following. I would propose that Republicans invest upstream in research and development, both incentivizing it through our companies and, and innovators out of their garages and you know, the physical sciences. But also, you know, we should continue to invest, as I said before in the, in the public R D piece, but then downstream I would say, you know, like wind and solar. These are fairly advanced technologies. These are fairly advanced technologies. How much longer do they need tax supports? I think it's a fair question. Maybe modular nuclear should receive some more benefits. Maybe fusion technology should receive some more benefits. So I do think after a period of time, especially I've now been doing this long enough to know that these were promised as temporary measures to get over the valley of death. And now so many intermittent companies are coming back and saying, no, no, we need Them forever. Right. And so I think instead these should be targeted more towards innovative but not yet fully market ready without some assistance technologies.
- [21:18]
B
And how are you making that?
- [21:19]
A
I didn't speak for all Republicans, but that's where I stand.
- [21:22]
B
Got it. Well, it's good to know where you stand. I mean, I wonder when you talk with other Republicans how you make that case. Because right now the reality is there's not a whole lot of legislation that passes on a real bipartisan basis. You have been successful in the past though, particularly I'm thinking of the CHIPS act with selling legislation that Democrats and Republicans buy into. What needs to happen in this moment to get a bipartisan vision like what you're describing?
- [21:48]
A
Well, you need to make a fiscal case. And that's what, you know, Republicans are in the process. I think every Republican would like to ensure that, that every solar or wind company could receive all the benefits they need to stay healthy and to keep employing all their people. But we don't have unlimited resources. Right. So the fiscal argument is one you can make to your colleagues and say we're setting priorities here. This is what policymakers do. We establish priorities. The greatest priority are those technologies that are very promising but are not yet cost effective. And a lesser priority are those technologies that have been around for a long time ought to be cost effective. Let's give them a shot to actually, you know, tangle in the market against other technologies. So I think right now, and this is, you have to be attentive to the time you're trying to pass an initiative into. So making the fiscal responsibility argument, also making the China competition argument, something, you know, that is a theme of this whole forum, is very important. We cannot afford to allow, I'll use, you know, as a mars as an example again, we can't allow China to outflank us in that area. It's time we get started and it's time we recognize that there is an economic and national security dimension to being best in class or at least being competitive as it relates to SMRs. Going forward now we have a window of opportunity, I think, to do this. We, we certainly can't wait four years.
- [23:28]
B
We're almost out of time. I do want to ask, you know, this idea of the next frontier. What's the next frontier for you? I mean, you've done work on AI, you've done work on biotech. What is the area of technology right now that you are fascinated with, perplexed by trying to figure out how to build some policy around?
- [23:47]
A
Well, I'm fascinated And perplexed by a lot of things. Some people have a problem in life that they just can't find anything they're really passionate about and, and, or, or, or, or that they can stay interested in. Oh, my gosh. I'm just, I'm. I'm too interested. I love it. I love this opportunity to be a sort of generalist, working with some of the world's best specialists. If I were to pin it down, it would be an opportunity on the back end of this. We already mentioned biotech, so I'll mention shipbuilding. Yes. Ships. Rhymes with ships. And the President. United States loves this one. Okay. We have the capacity to build five merchant ships a year. You heard that, right? Five ships a year in the United States. If that doesn't sound like a lot, it's not. China can build over a thousand a year. And if that. If your intuition tells you that might be a national security issue, you're right. Not even a long war, a war that lasts a few months, could lead to the need to build additional naval vessels. And so the capacity we build now, both human capacity, from welders to all kinds of things to capital investments in our shipyards, to merchant mariners to man those ships and bring goods to and fro, really important. Moreover, there's a daily economic security imperative that's already playing out. We depend on Chinese shippers. I like the people of China. I don't like the government of China. And we cannot continue to be dependent on them for shipbuilding. So this is an obvious area of focus for Congress. I have a bill with Senator Kelly. We feel like it's a great start, if it can be improved. I'm here again. I'm open to feedback, but we need to move on this in the next, I'd say before years end. And so that's what I'd like to turn to. That's what I'm really excited about.
- [25:46]
B
All right. AI ships. Chips. Oh, my. Listen, Senator Young, thank you for being here.
- [25:50]
A
Critical Minerals. So thanks for having me.
- [25:52]
B
Thank you so much for being here. That's all for this week's Politico Tech. If you enjoy Politico Tech, please subscribe, rate a review and recommend the show. A friend or colleague. And for more tech news, subscribe to our newsletters, Digital Future Daily and morning Tech. Music in our show comes from the mysterious brake master cylinder. Our producer is Nirmal Maliko. I'm Stephen Overle. See you back here next week.