The idea that artificial intelligence might be shaping major government decisions, like how we tax imports or whom we target with tariffs used to sound like science fiction. But not anymore. Numerous folks have now pointed out that when asked to calculate tariffs, AI tends to use the same “unconventional” reasoning as the Trump administration used to get the tariffs he has placed on other countries.
This is no longer an edge hypothetical scenario. Policy experts, including researchers at the Brookings Institution, have warned that while AI tools offer real promise in economic modeling, the way governments are using them is alarmingly opaque. In fact, Europe has already begun drafting regulations around AI’s role in diplomacy and trade. Here in the United States, there are no such standards, no rules, no transparency, and no real oversight. And that should give us all pause.
Which brings us to the strange and seemingly scattered set of tariffs the Trump administration has recently rolled out, duties aimed at electric vehicle components from Germany, steel imports from South Korea, and dozens of other targeted goods from around the world. Some observers, including economists and tech analysts, have begun to wonder if these tariffs were devised, or at least influenced, by AI?
To be clear, there's no official proof that AI directly created this tariff policy. No smoking gun memo. No government press release saying, “We let the algorithm handle this one.” But the nature of these tariffs, their patchwork logic, their disconnection from long-term strategy, and their targeting of both rivals and allies alike suggests something beyond traditional economic thinking might be at play. Maybe a machine helped shape the outcome. Maybe someone used AI models to backstop a political decision. Maybe it was just political theater, with data dressing.
Regardless of whether AI was involved this time, the real issue is the question if we should be using AI to make decisions this big?
There’s a case to be made for using AI as a tool in economic policymaking. AI can help analysts simulate global trade flows, predict supply chain disruptions, and spot economic ripple effects that might not be visible at first glance. Done right, AI can improve how we plan and respond in a fast-moving world.
But tools are one thing. Drivers are another.
AI doesn’t understand people. It doesn’t weigh the ethical cost of hurting one nation to help another. It can’t see the long-term trust built between allies or the subtle damage done when trade becomes a weapon. What it can do is optimize for profit, for GDP, for efficiency. But optimizing for the numbers doesn’t always mean making the right call for people.
And there’s a more subtle danger, too. AI can be manipulated. Feed it cherry-picked data, and it’ll spit out a result that fits your narrative. Dress that up as objective truth, and suddenly a political decision looks like science. That’s a dangerous game, especially in an administration that has a history of favoring performance over policy.
There’s also the problem of accountability. If a trade policy built with help from AI ends up hurting American workers or sparking a diplomatic conflict, who takes responsibility? The software engineer? The consultant? The official who glanced at the report and said, “Looks good enough”? Right now, there’s no clear answer.
And let’s not forget that AI is only as good as the data it’s fed. In global economics, that data is often patchy, outdated, or just plain wrong. If you base decisions on a flawed foundation, you’re building policy on sand regardless of how impressive the technology looks on the surface.
In some ways, the idea of AI-driven trade policy is less about the tech and more about how we govern. Technology should support good decision-making, not replace it. And certainly not shield it from scrutiny. If we’re going to let AI into the room where policy happens, we need rules, strong ones. Transparency. Public oversight. Clear lines of responsibility.
Other countries are already starting to figure this out. The European Union, for example, is crafting legislation to define how AI can and can’t be used in sensitive political domains. The U.S., by contrast, seems content to let things evolve behind closed doors. That’s not leadership. That’s abdication.
Look, AI is here to stay. It’s going to play a role in shaping our economy, our diplomacy, even our everyday lives. The question isn’t whether we’ll use it, but how. And right now, that “how” is murky at best.
Whether or not the Trump tariffs were crafted with AI input, the bigger point is that we need to know when and how these tools are being used to shape policies that affect millions of people. We need to make sure they’re being used wisely and that humans remain in charge of the decisions that matter most.
Because trade policy isn’t just numbers on a spreadsheet. It’s about relationships, consequences, livelihoods. It’s about whether we reward fairness or punish cooperation. And those are choices that no algorithm, no matter how advanced, is equipped to make.
The pen that signs off on an economic decision should be guided by insight, ethics, and responsibility. Not just a line of code.
Disclaimer: Jim Powers writes Opinion Columns. The views expressed in this editorial are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of Polk County Publishing or its affiliates. In the interest of transparency, I am politically Left Libertarian.
