Innovation Council Action, a new pro-AI political group led by tech investor David Sacks and aligned with President Trump, is gearing up to spend more than $100 million in the 2026 midterms to push a deregulatory AI agenda and counter calls for stricter rules. The organization aims to back candidates who favor a single federal framework and faster infrastructure buildout while opposing lawmakers who push a patchwork of state restrictions. This move signals a high-stakes, well-funded campaign to make AI policy a decisive issue in elections and policymaking.
The group is openly backing deregulation and prioritizing U.S. leadership in the technology race with China. That means supporting candidates who want fewer barriers to innovation, faster approval for data centers and a national approach to AI oversight. For Republicans who see regulation as a chokehold on competitiveness, this is the kind of strategic play that makes sense.
“President Trump has made it clear, America will win the AI race against China, period. He built the framework, he’s leading from the front, and this organization exists to make sure he doesn’t fight that battle alone,” Taylor Budowich, founder of Innovation Council Action, told Fox News Digital.
“The cavalry is coming to back up the policymakers who stand with the president and will hold accountable the ones who don’t,” Budowich added. Those are not empty campaign lines—this group has the money and the messaging to turn rhetoric into electoral pressure.
TRUMP NAMES DAVID SACKS CO-CHAIR OF TECH ADVISORY COUNCIL, EXPANDING AI, CRYPTO ROLE
The stakes are straightforward: whoever writes the rules shapes the winners and losers in the next wave of economic growth. A fragmented regulatory landscape driven by state-level bans and divergent standards would only hand competitive advantage to China and slow American startups. Innovation Council Action is betting voters and donors will back candidates promising a national playbook focused on speed and scale.
AI POWER PLAYERS POUR CASH INTO COMPETITIVE PRIMARIES AS 2026 MIDTERMS HEAT UP
This push is arriving amid a crowded field of politically active tech groups. Leading the Future has already reported raising roughly $50 million from major tech figures, while other backers are plotting state-level investments and primary challenges. That money isn’t just advertising; it’s strategic support aimed at primaries where ideological stances on regulation often decide the eventual nominees.
Meta is also reported to be underwriting a separate effort expected to put about $65 million into state contests, signaling that both industry and platform companies see state races as critical levers. Those dollars mean governors and state legislators will feel pressure to pick sides between fostering growth and imposing restrictive rules. For Republicans focused on innovation, state-level fights are just as important as federal ones.
Innovation Council Action hasn’t been idle. The group quietly opened a Washington office and has been building relationships since late last year, raising funds and mapping where its investments could matter most. That presence signals long-term intent rather than a one-off splash, and it gives the organization a runway to influence both candidate selection and policy debates.
Part of the group’s playbook is a scorecard that ranks lawmakers by how closely they align with the Trump AI agenda. That public grading system will guide donations and endorsements and make it easy for voters to see who stands for aggressive development and who backs heavier restrictions. Scorecards change incentives; when money follows grades, votes and rhetoric tend to follow suit.
For conservatives who want America to win the tech race, this campaign offers a direct way to translate policy preferences into political consequences. The coming primaries and state contests will test which candidates can credibly promise faster infrastructure, a unified federal approach, and a posture that treats AI as a national security and economic priority. That choice will define the next chapter of American competitiveness.
