President Donald Trump’s aggressive policy agenda is doing more than reshaping the economy and immigration enforcement — it’s also giving a handful of Democratic governors a national stage to position themselves as potential 2028 presidential contenders.California’s Gavin Newsom, Illinois’ J B Pritzker, and Maryland’s Wes Moore have seized on Trump’s moves to rally their party’s base, sharpen their contrasts with the White House, and build networks beyond their home states.Trump’s push for Republican states to redraw their congressional districts to favour his party in next year’s midterm elections, his military-style immigration raids in Democratic cities and deep federal spending cuts have triggered fierce resistance among Democrats. That opposition has become a political asset for governors looking to raise their profiles.California Governor Gavin Newsom pushed back against Trump’s redistricting effort by successfully championing a ballot measure in his state that may allow Democrats to take extra seats in next year’s congressional elections. Newsom, who is weighing a 2028 presidential run, celebrated his win with a speech to Democrats in Houston, Texas, a move viewed as raising his profile beyond his home state.Illinois’ Pritzker, meanwhile, has positioned himself as a defender of immigrant communities against Trump’s enforcement surge. Last week, he signed legislation barring federal arrests at schools and courthouses. He has also headlined Democratic events in New Hampshire and Minnesota, where he has urged his party to be bolder against Trump.Moore has blasted Trump’s efforts to shrink the federal workforce and slash SNAP food benefits for low-income families during a recent government shutdown. He responded by restoring full SNAP benefits in Maryland and campaigning for Democrats in swing states, framing his actions as a direct counter to Trump’s policies.Their actions have been greeted by relief and excitement in a party that is looking for a jolt after Trump trounced Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris last year, and Republicans gained control of Congress.Mike Doyle, chair of the Harris County Democratic Party in Houston, attended Newsom’s speech and said the crowd “was as enthusiastic” as he had ever seen. He credited Newsom for coming to Texas, a state in which Democrats are hoping to boost their electoral fortunes in the midterms and beyond.Newsom’s “decision to essentially kick off his 2028 presidential campaign in Houston demonstrated to a lot of folks on the ground exactly the kind of aggressive, mathematically sophisticated thinking Democrats need nationally,” Doyle said in an interview.Democratic strategists say the governors are tapping into frustrations among many Democrats over their party’s struggle to define itself and what it stands for in the Trump era.“If you ask Democrats in polling what they want most from their elected officials, it is to put a check on Trump,” said Cornell Belcher, a Democratic pollster.Belcher has seen this before. He was a pollster for Barack Obama as the then largely unknown Illinois politician rose in national prominence during the George W Bush administration largely through his opposition to the Iraq war.As the governors’ profiles grow, Trump has sharpened his attacks.Asked for comment, the White House referred Reuters to the Republican National Committee, which said Newsom, Pritzker and other Democratic governors were out of touch with mainstream voters.“In far-left states, extremists like Pritzker and Newsom can attack law enforcement and enable illegal immigrants, but once they step out their Democrat bubbles, they’ll find most Americans don’t support these radical policies,” said RNC spokeswoman Delanie Bomar.Newsom, Pritzker and Moore did not respond to requests for comment.They aren’t the only Democratic governors considered to be in the 2028 mix. Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer, Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro and Kentucky’s Andy Beshear could also enter the race.But Trump has not taken aim at their states the way he has with California, Illinois and Maryland, denying those governors the same kind of platform.Strong opposition to Trump has boosted not just Democratic governors. In New York City, Zohran Mamdani’s unlikely victory in the mayoral race was made possible, in part, by his willingness to confront Trump on issues such as the rising cost of living and protecting immigrant communities.Newsom, arguably, has taken most advantage of the moment. On social media — a critical battleground for any politician with presidential ambitions — he trolls Trump with spoof posts that routinely go viral.This month alone, Newsom has mocked Trump for receiving a “peace prize” from FIFA, soccer’s global governing body, calling it a participation trophy, and for seemingly falling asleep during a cabinet meeting.In July, he travelled to South Carolina, which likely will hold the first Democratic presidential primary in 2028. He also took centre stage at the recent global climate conference in Brazil that Trump refused to send a delegation to, blasting the Trump administration’s economic and energy policies.Newsom has acknowledged in interviews he is considering running for the 2028 Democratic nomination and will decide after next year’s midterms.“A lot of people in public life are understandably intimidated by Trump and how he operates. Newsom has shown he is not one of those people,” said Brian Brokaw, a political adviser to Newsom.Similarly, Moore spoke at a Democratic dinner in South Carolina in May and followed that in June by addressing the NAACP, the biggest US civil rights group, in Michigan, a key swing state. He campaigned for recent Democratic gubernatorial candidates in New Jersey and Virginia, both of whom won.Last month, Moore launched his own effort to redraw Maryland’s congressional map, a direct response, he said, to Trump.“Because of the way Trump has governed, it has elevated issues to a national level that may have otherwise not become national issues,” said a Moore adviser, who asked not to be identified so as to be able to speak freely about the governor’s actions.Pritzker has also been making the rounds. In April, he gave a no-holds-barred speech attacking Trump in New Hampshire, another potential early-voting state, where he said he was “contemptuous” of Trump, while blasting his own party as “timid”. He also headlined a Democratic dinner in Minnesota in June and another dinner in the swing state of North Carolina in July.In a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted last month, 64% of Democrats had a favourable opinion of Newsom. A majority of Democrats said they were unfamiliar with Pritzker or Moore, suggesting both have work to do to build their national brands. — Reuters

Ahead of the AI Impact Summit in India in February, it is clear that most countries still lack a workable model for governing the technology. While the United States leaves matters largely to market forces, the European Union relies on extensive regulatory compliance, and China on concentrated state authority. But none of these is a realistic option if you are among the many countries that must govern AI without large regulatory structures or massive computing capacity. Instead, we need a different framework, one that embeds transparency, consent, and accountability directly into digital infrastructure.This approach treats governance as a design choice that can be built into the very foundations of digital systems. When safeguards are part of the architecture, responsible behaviour becomes the default. Regulators gain immediate insight into how data and automated systems behave, and users have clear control over their information. It is a far more scalable and inclusive method than one that relies on regulation alone.But what should this look like in practice? India’s experience with digital public infrastructure offers many lessons. The country’s platforms for identity documentation (Aadhaar), payments (UPI), travel (DigiYatra), and digital commerce (ONDC) all show how public standards and private innovation can operate together on a national scale. For example, DigiYatra – a public-private initiative that streamlines airline check-ins, queuing, and other elements of travel – demonstrates how real-time identity verification and consent protocols can be managed across large user groups in a secure and predictable way.These systems demonstrate how digital architecture can expand access, increase trust, and promote thriving markets. They would not single-handedly solve the challenges of AI governance, but they do show that technical standards and public purpose can be aligned even in the largest, most diverse societies.India’s own Data Empowerment and Protection Architecture builds on these lessons and is already being deployed across many sectors. Since it allows individuals to authorise or withdraw permission for the use of their data through clear and auditable channels, transparency is built in, enabling regulators to follow data flows without the need for new supervisory institutions. Again, the underlying design principle is straightforward: Durable protection is most effective when it is embedded in system architecture, rather than being enforced only through compliance processes.To be globally viable, an architectural approach must prioritise sovereignty over compute. Computing capacity is clearly the strategic bottleneck of the AI age, which is why the US and China are spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually on advanced data centres and AI chips. But since most countries cannot hope to match these investments, we must avoid a scenario where meaningful AI governance itself requires compute – where most countries would have little real authority over the systems shaping their societies.Maintaining sovereignty over compute does not necessarily mean that every data centre should be built domestically. But it does mean that AI systems operating within a country should remain subject to its laws and accountable to domestic authorities, regardless of where the compute resides. Multinational technology companies would need to maintain clear legal and operational partitions with technical firewalls and auditable controls. Such safeguards are necessary to prevent data from crossing borders without authorisation, and to ensure that domestic data are not incorporated into globally available models without explicit approval. Without enforceable partitions, governments will struggle to maintain oversight of the digital systems that influence domestic finance, healthcare, logistics, and public administration.This underscores a major strength of the architectural approach: it allows every country to set its preferred balance of risk, innovation, and commerce. Societies differ in their views on privacy, experimentation, market openness, and safety, so no single regulatory model can ever accommodate everyone’s preferences. But a shared architectural foundation based on transparent data flows, traceable model behaviour, and the principle of “sovereignty over compute” gives each country the flexibility to calibrate its own parameters. The rails are shared, but the national settings remain sovereign.Compared with current global approaches, an architectural model provides a more balanced and realistic path forward. The US system encourages rapid experimentation but often recognises harm only after it occurs. The European system provides strong safeguards but demands high compliance capacity. And the Chinese system achieves speed through centralisation, which leaves it ill-suited for distributed governance. By embedding transparency and consent into digital systems from the start, an architectural approach enables innovation to proceed predictably while ensuring public accountability.The world needs a shared governance system that has been built into the very foundations of this powerful technology. — Project Syndicate