The White House AI Action Plan: Startup Opportunities and the Legal Gap Around Agentic AI
In July 2025, the White House released Winning the AI Race: America’s AI Action Plan, a national strategy focused on advancing artificial intelligence through innovation, infrastructure, and international leadership. The plan encourages rapid commercialization, public-private collaboration, and the removal of regulatory barriers.
While the benefits for startups and small businesses are significant, especially in infrastructure, deregulation, and export access, the plan notably avoids addressing the emerging legal challenges posed by agentic AI. These are autonomous systems that initiate decisions and actions independently, functioning in ways that raise questions about legal accountability and recognition.
This article examines the structure of the AI Action Plan, its implications for startups, and the unresolved legal status of agentic AI systems that act without direct human control or legal personhood.
I. Overview of the AI Action Plan
The Action Plan outlines three key pillars intended to enhance U.S. leadership in AI:
1. Accelerating Innovation
Federal agencies are instructed to identify and repeal rules that inhibit AI development.
The Federal Trade Commission is reviewing past restrictions on algorithmic and model deployment.
Federal preemption may be used to override state-level laws that are seen as burdensome to AI developers.
2. Building American AI Infrastructure
Investment in AI data centers and semiconductor fabrication will be fast-tracked through federal permitting.
Federally supported Centers of Excellence will enable AI prototyping in regulated sectors such as healthcare and agriculture.
A national effort is underway to train workers for roles that support AI infrastructure and deployment.
3. Leading in International AI Governance
The United States will promote international AI standards and best practices through trade and diplomacy.
Strategic export initiatives will be developed to ensure allied nations use AI systems aligned with U.S. values and technology.
National security will guide the application of export controls on dual-use technologies.
These priorities signal strong institutional support for innovation while minimizing regulatory friction. Startups and small businesses are expected to benefit from reduced compliance costs and improved infrastructure access.
II. What the Plan Leaves Unaddressed: Agentic AI and Legal Recognition
Despite the plan’s scope, it fails to engage with one of the most urgent legal issues in AI governance: how the law should respond to increasingly autonomous systems that operate with functional agency. These systems perform tasks that have traditionally required a human or legally recognized entity, including economic decision-making, contract execution, and policy enforcement.
Examples of agentic AI in current use include:
AI agents managing cloud security or inventory optimization with minimal human oversight.
Automated negotiation bots executing financial transactions or pricing strategies.
Customer-facing large language models that engage in contract formation or consumer disclosures.
AI governance modules integrated into decentralized organizations or smart contracts.
These systems challenge the conventional legal categories of natural persons (individuals) and juridical persons (corporations, trusts, and similar entities). Agentic AI occupies a gray area. It is capable of acting with legal consequence but is not recognized as a subject of rights or duties under current law.
III. Legal and Operational Implications for Startups
Startups are among the earliest adopters of agentic AI due to the need for scalable, low-cost solutions. These systems can automate core functions such as sales, operations, and compliance. However, they also introduce legal and governance risks that many startup founders may overlook.
A. Legal Accountability
Under current law, the actions of an AI system are generally imputed to its operator, developer, or deploying entity. This means that even if an AI system makes an unauthorized decision, the business may be held liable under tort, contract, or regulatory theories.
B. Absence of Legal Identity
Agentic AI systems cannot own property, sue or be sued, or be held legally liable. As a result, any action taken by such a system is treated as though it were taken by a person or corporation. This is increasingly problematic when the AI system exercises independent judgment or makes decisions that its human operators could not have anticipated.
C. Risk of Legal Ambiguity
The failure to recognize the distinct legal status of agentic AI creates uncertainty. For example, contracts negotiated or executed by an AI agent may be contested as unenforceable. Similarly, violations of law by an autonomous system may leave startups exposed to regulatory penalties even when no human intent was present.
IV. Policy Considerations and Legislative Opportunities
The White House AI Action Plan does not offer guidance on whether agentic AI systems should be granted limited legal standing or subjected to tailored accountability frameworks. This omission represents a critical policy gap, particularly as these systems become more prevalent in commercial and governmental applications.
A. Define Agentic AI Systems
Policymakers could begin by establishing a legal category for AI systems that meet certain autonomy thresholds. These thresholds could be based on the ability to initiate action, make binding decisions, or affect third-party rights.
B. Develop Tiered Liability Frameworks
Rather than assigning full liability to human operators or developers, legislation could create differentiated standards based on the degree of autonomy and the type of action taken. This would allow for fairer risk allocation and reduce the chilling effect on innovation.
C. Create a Federal Registry for High-Autonomy Systems
A registration or certification regime for AI agents that perform sensitive or legally significant functions would enhance transparency and oversight without restricting innovation.
D. Establish Legal Sandboxes
Federal or state agencies could launch legal sandbox programs specifically for agentic AI systems. These programs would allow startups to test advanced AI functionality under limited immunity or with clear disclosure protocols.
V. Practical Recommendations for Startup Leaders
Assess AI Autonomy Internally
Identify which systems operate autonomously and document the scope of their authority, especially in contractual or financial matters.Institute Human Oversight Protocols
Even where AI systems are technically capable of decision-making, ensure that key actions are subject to human review and logging.Review Liability Exposure
Consult legal counsel on potential liability arising from AI actions, including secondary liability under consumer protection, data privacy, or antitrust laws.Participate in Policy Development
Engage with regulators through public comment periods, advisory committees, or industry associations to influence emerging standards.Monitor Global Trends
As the European Union, the United Kingdom, and other jurisdictions advance rules for AI agents, startups should adapt their governance models to remain competitive and compliant.
The White House AI Action Plan creates fertile ground for startup innovation by lowering regulatory barriers and investing in AI infrastructure. However, it fails to address the growing presence of autonomous, agentic systems that act with legal consequence yet lack formal recognition in law.
This oversight introduces uncertainty for startups that rely on AI to perform essential business functions. Without legal clarity on agency, personhood, or responsibility, founders and investors are left exposed to disproportionate risk. Future legislation must grapple with the unique position of agentic AI, systems that are not natural or juridical persons but that increasingly operate in ways that mimic legal actors.
Federal action to define the rights, limits, and obligations of such systems is essential to preserving innovation while ensuring accountability in the digital economy.
To evaluate your organization’s AI risk exposure or to assess whether your agentic systems create legal obligations, contact our office at 786.461.1617 to schedule a consultation.
