Many Americans pessimistic about AI’s impact – and want more regulation

PHILADELPHIA – As debate intensifies over data center construction and how to regulate artificial intelligence (AI), a new nationally representative survey finds that Americans are broadly pessimistic about the impact of AI and want more government action to regulate the technology.

The survey, conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania, finds that only 17% of Americans believe AI will have a positive impact on the United States over the next decade, while 42% expect its effects to be negative. Nearly two-thirds (65%) say the government has done “too little” to regulate AI – a view by majorities of Democrats, independents, and Republicans alike.

Key findings

The survey, by the Annenberg Public Policy Center’s Institutions of Democracy division, was conducted among a nationally representative sample of 1,330 U.S. adult citizens from Feb. 17-March 20, 2026. (Download the topline here.) The survey finds that:

• Many Americans are pessimistic about AI’s future impact: Only 17% say the impact of AI on the United States over the next 10 years will be somewhat or very positive, compared with 42% who say it will be somewhat or very negative.
• A bipartisan majority says the government has done too little to regulate AI: Nearly two-thirds (65%) say the government has done “too little,” including 77% of Democrats, 72% of independents, and 53% of Republicans.
• Medical research is a bright spot: Over half (57%) expect AI to have a somewhat or very positive impact on medical research and discoveries.
• Building new data centers is unpopular: Nearly half of Americans (49%) oppose construction of new data centers in their area, while just 1 in 5 (21%) support it.

“These results tell a clear story: Americans are paying attention to AI – nearly 8 in 10 say they’ve heard at least a moderate amount about it – and what they see concerns them,” said Shawn Patterson Jr., a research analyst at APPC. “The demand for regulation is not a partisan issue. Majorities across the political spectrum say the government has done too little.”

Americans are broadly pessimistic about AI’s impact

Despite widespread awareness of artificial intelligence – 78% say they have heard at least a moderate amount about it and 67% report using AI at least a few times in the past month – the public outlook on AI’s trajectory is negative. When respondents are asked what they think the impact of AI on the United States will be over the next 10 years, only 7% say “very positive” and 11% say “somewhat positive.” In contrast, 22% say the impact will be “very negative” and 20% say “somewhat negative.” About a third (32%) say the impact will be equally positive and negative.

Medical research stands out; other domains provoke concern

When asked about AI’s expected impact across seven specific domains, Americans see one clear area of promise: medical research and discoveries, where over half (57%) expect a positive impact. But optimism drops sharply elsewhere. Only 24% expect AI to have a positive impact on government effectiveness, 22% on creative arts, and 19% on the economy. The most pessimistic assessments are reserved for mental health and well-being (17% positive), household utility costs (14% positive), and U.S.-China relations (5% positive).

Bipartisan demand for AI regulation

Nearly two-thirds of Americans (65%) say the government has done “too little” to regulate AI, while only 8% say it has done “too much” and 26% say “about the right amount.” The support for regulation is bipartisan: 77% of Democrats, 72% of independents, and 53% of Republicans say the government has done too little. When asked whether the federal government or state governments should take the lead, 52% favor the federal government.

The demand for regulation intensifies with pessimism about AI but is not confined to it. Among those who believe AI’s impact will be “very negative,” 83% say the government has done too little. But even among those people who expect AI’s impact to be “very positive,” 43% say the government has done too little – and a majority (57%) of those who think it’ll be equally positive and negative agree with that view. Only among the most optimistic respondents, the small group that thinks AI’s impact will be very positive, does a majority (53%) say the current level of regulation is “about the right amount.”

AI regulation preferences less polarized

When asked whether former Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris would have done a better or worse job than President Donald Trump, a Republican, across eight policy areas, AI regulation stands out for its relative lack of polarization — a pattern that may reflect the novelty of AI as a political issue and the absence of established partisan lines. AI regulation draws the largest share of “about the same” responses (24%) of any policy area tested, suggesting that many Americans do not yet see AI policy as a clear differentiator between the parties.

Unsurprisingly, Democrats and Republicans diverge on questions of who would better handle different policy matters – but the differences on AI regulation are narrower than other issues in the survey. On AI regulation, 22% of both Democrats and Republicans say Harris would have done “about the same” as Trump, a rate of cross-party agreement far higher than on issues such as immigration (7% of Democrats, 6% of Republicans), the economy (11%, 10%), or inflation (12%, 11%). The overall partisan gap is also narrower: though there is a vast 65-point spread between Democrats who say Harris would do “better” (73%) than Trump on AI regulation and Republicans who also say so (8%), that gap is the smallest among the issues tested, compared with gaps of 75 and 76 percentage points on immigration, inflation, and the economy.

“The relative lack of partisan polarization on AI is particularly striking in this political moment, given the ongoing political polarization on almost all other issues,” said University of Pennsylvania professor Matt Levendusky, the Stephen and Mary Baran Chair in the Institutions of Democracy at APPC. “Concern about AI is bipartisan, and the public is waiting to see what politicians will do. This offers real potential rewards to either party if they can convince the public that they have the correct approach.” 

Data centers and job concerns

As AI data centers proliferate across the country, drawing scrutiny from communities concerned about energy costs and local impact, the survey finds that 49% of Americans oppose new data center construction in their area, including 31% who strongly oppose it. Only 21% support it, and 30% are neutral. Among those who are currently employed, 41% say they are somewhat or very worried about losing their job or having their hours reduced due to AI, with Democrats (50%) expressing more concern than independents (41%) and Republicans (32%).

APPC’s Institutions of Democracy survey

The Annenberg Public Policy Center’s Institutions of Democracy survey was fielded with a nationally representative sample of 1,330 U.S. citizens ages 18 and older from Feb. 17-March 20, 2026. The survey was conducted for APPC by SSRS, an independent research company, primarily online, with a small sample of phone respondents. Respondents were asked in a prior survey if they identified with either party; those who identified as independents who leaned toward one of the two major parties are counted with that party. Respondents were weighted to align with population benchmarks. The margin of error for the full sample is ±3.5 percentage points, and it is larger for subgroups.

Download the topline and the survey methodology. See the topline for question wording.

APPC’s Institutions of Democracy division studies democratic institutions, public opinion, political behavior, and information environments. IOD conducts original survey research and related empirical work to provide rigorous, nonpartisan evidence on contemporary political and public-affairs questions.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania was established in 1993 to educate the public and policy makers about communication’s role in advancing public understanding of political, science, and health issues at the local, state, and federal levels.

---

---