GIRAI logo
United States of America flag

Global Index Score

53.34

Global: 27thRegional: 2ndIncome Group: 25th

United States of America's index score lands -0.9 against the Northern America average (54.2) and +1.2 against High income peers (52.1). It scores ahead of 81% of the 135 countries and jurisdictions assessed this edition. Published score 53.3 reflects a URAI adjustment from 57.4 (2 government-misuse evidence items on file). The profile rests on 48 documented evidence items spanning policy frameworks, government initiatives and civil society activity.

How United States of America Performs Across the Five Dimensions

GIRAI evaluates countries across five core dimensions that capture the social, ethical, and institutional impacts of artificial intelligence.

AI Policy

51.08

Avrg. Score

48.70

Global: 23rdRegional: 1st

Enabling Conditions

72.99

Avrg. Score

79.82

Global: 29thRegional: 2nd

Civil Society Engagement

48.05

Avrg. Score

41.97

Global: 9thRegional: 1st
1

Inclusion and Diversity

56.26

Index Score

57.59

Avrg. Dimension score

Global: 28thRegional: 2nd

United States of America runs -1.3 against the regional average (57.6) on Inclusion and Diversity. Strongest indicators: Children's Rights (72.0), Gender Equality (65.2). Weakest: Cultural and Linguistic Diversity (0.0). This dimension ranks 28th globally — behind the country's overall position (27th). 5 evidence items on file, including "Children´s Online Privacy Protection Rule Amendments (USA)" and 1 other documented items.

2

Ethics and Sustainability

45.78

Index Score

51.88

Avrg. Dimension score

Global: 46thRegional: 2nd

United States of America runs -6.1 against the regional average (51.9) on Ethics and Sustainability. Strongest indicators: Human Oversight and Determination (76.4), Transparency and Explainability (37.9). Weakest: Environmental Impact (9.1), Fairness and Non-discrimination (22.7). This dimension ranks 46th globally — behind the country's overall position (27th). 13 evidence items on file, including "Algorithmic Accountability Act 2025 (USA)" and 1 other documented items.

3

Labour and Skills

63.40

Index Score

54.77

Avrg. Dimension score

Global: 19thRegional: 1st

United States of America runs +8.6 against the regional average (54.8) on Labour and Skills. Strongest indicators: Reskilling/Upskilling Initiatives (83.7), AI Literacy (69.7). Weakest: Labour Protections (38.6). This dimension ranks 19th globally — ahead of the country's overall position (27th). 10 evidence items on file, including "Advancing Artificial Intelligence Education for American Youth" and 2 other documented items.

4

Trust and Safety

59.21

Index Score

56.16

Avrg. Dimension score

Global: 34thRegional: 1st

United States of America runs +3.1 against the regional average (56.2) on Trust and Safety. Strongest indicators: Impact Assessments (67.4), AI-facilitated Misinformation and Violence (59.1). Weakest: Access to Redress and Remedy (28.5), Safety and Security (38.8). This dimension ranks 34th globally — behind the country's overall position (27th). 10 evidence items on file, including "Public Law 119-21 'Take it down Act' (USA)" and 2 other documented items.

5

AI Use in Public Service

62.11

Index Score

66.46

Avrg. Dimension score

Global: 12thRegional: 2nd

United States of America runs -4.4 against the regional average (66.5) on AI Use in Public Service. Strongest indicators: Public Procurement (77.0), Public Disclosure of Government Algorithmic Systems (66.4). Weakest: Public Sector Skills Development (38.9). This dimension ranks 12th globally — ahead of the country's overall position (27th). 10 evidence items on file, including "AI Training Series for Government Employees".

Comparing Results Across Editions

Explore how country performance, scores, and governance indicators have changed between GIRAI editions.

14 indicators

Indicator2024 Edition2026 Edition
Gender EqualityNon-Binding FrameworkBinding Framework
Children's RightsNo FrameworkBinding Framework
Cultural and Linguistic DiversityNo FrameworkNo Framework
Fairness and Non-discriminationBinding FrameworkDraft
Transparency and ExplainabilityNon-Binding FrameworkBinding Framework
Human Oversight and DeterminationNon-Binding FrameworkNon-Binding Framework
Labour ProtectionsBinding FrameworkNon-Binding Framework
Reskilling/Upskilling InitiativesBinding FrameworkNon-Binding Framework
Safety and SecurityBinding FrameworkBinding Framework
Access to Redress and RemedyNo FrameworkBinding Framework
Impact AssessmentsNon-Binding FrameworkBinding Framework
Public Sector Skills DevelopmentBinding FrameworkBinding Framework
Public ProcurementBinding FrameworkBinding Framework
Government Mechanisms for CSO Inclusion in AI Policy and GovernanceBinding FrameworkNon-Binding Framework

Indicator definitions changed between editions; this table compares evidence presence and status, not directly comparable scores. A — indicates the item is not applicable or was not assessed for that edition.

Compare responsible AI performance

Explore how countries and regions perform across GIRAI's governance dimensions, scores, and structural indicators.

Compare
🇺🇸United States of America

53.34

Global 27thRegional 2nd
Northern America

54.22

Regional average

Dimension scores

Inclusion and Diversity
United States of America
56.3
Northern America
57.6
Ethics and Sustainability
United States of America
45.8
Northern America
51.9
Labour and Skills
United States of America
63.4
Northern America
54.8
Trust and Safety
United States of America
59.2
Northern America
56.2
AI Use in Public Service
United States of America
62.1
Northern America
66.5

Indicators

37 of 37
IndicatorUnited States of AmericaNorthern America
Inclusion and Diversity7
APGender Equality
65.262.6
APChildren's Rights
72.050.8
APCultural and Linguistic Diversity
0.024.6
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Inclusion and Diversity
46.150.0
ECEgalitarian Democracy
55.164.4
ECDevice Affordability
87.188.0
ECGender Gap in Mobile Internet
100.097.5
Ethics and Sustainability7
APFairness and Non-discrimination
22.741.2
APTransparency and Explainability
37.948.6
APHuman Oversight and Determination
76.462.7
APEnvironmental Impact
9.123.2
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Ethics and Sustainability
61.542.3
ECLow-Carbon Energy Share
41.959.8
ECRule of Law
76.282.2
Labour and Skills6
APLabour Protections
38.623.9
APReskilling/Upskilling Initiatives
83.775.6
APAI Literacy
69.734.9
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Labour and Skills
41.046.2
ECLabour Rights & Compliance
39.356.9
ECSkills & Literacy
100.098.4
Trust and Safety10
APSafety and Security
38.839.3
APAccess to Redress and Remedy
28.534.3
APImpact Assessments
67.454.1
APAI-facilitated Misinformation and Violence
59.152.6
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Trust and Safety
61.535.2
ECData Protection and Privacy
75.079.2
ECData Sharing and Access
87.590.6
ECConsumer Protection
92.293.2
ECCybersecurity
99.896.3
ECGlobal Peace
45.667.5
AI Use in Public Service7
APPublic Sector Skills Development
38.947.3
APPublic Disclosure of Government Algorithmic Systems
66.469.4
APPublic Procurement
77.074.7
CSOGovernment Mechanisms for CSO Inclusion in AI Policy and Governance
30.036.3
ECCivil Society Accountability
75.780.5
ECPublic Service Delivery
76.986.9
ECAccess to Public Information
73.978.0
Score adjustment
URAIUnacceptable Risk AI Systems
×0.932 government-misuse items×0.94Regional average
APAI Policy
CSOCSO Engagement
ECEnabling Conditions
Misuse Of AI

Unacceptable Risk AI Systems

Evidence related to government use of AI systems associated with unacceptable-risk categories.

Contact GIRAI
  • Criminal Justice & Law Enforcement

    First Step Act Annual Report: PATTERN: a government risk-prediction tool

    Over the past year (2024) the Federal Bureau of Prisons FBOP continued to implement PATTERN version 1.3 the current version of the tool. PATTERN qualifies as unacceptable because it is an individual criminal-risk prediction used to shape liberty-related outcomes. The report links PATTERN levels to time-credit eligibility and pre-release custody (Medium/High can apply credits only with warden approval) (Section I.B.2 pp.19–20; I.B.1 p.18). It also reports racial/ethnic overprediction (higher predicted risk than outcomes for Black Hispanic Asian people) raising discrimination and due-process concerns (Section I.A.1 pp.10–11).

    View Trusted Source
  • Discriminatory Public Service Systems

    The Civil Rights Implications of the Federal Use of Facial Technology

    Facial Recognition Technology is used by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (p. 4) to control access to public/assisted housing (a public service) (p. 8). Documented demographic error-rate disparities can cause unequal denial of entry/services. GAO reports concerns that higher error rates for some groups—especially Black women—can lead to repeated access denials (GAO-25-107196 p.15 “Error rates”). GAO also flags privacy/consent harms and possible data sharing with law enforcement increasing rights and due-process risks (GAO-25-107196 p.15 “Privacy and consent”; p.20 guidance gaps on consent/data sharing).

    View Trusted Source

What Drives This Performance?

A breakdown of the structural factors shaping this country's score.

AI Policy

National AI strategies, laws, and oversight mechanisms that establish formal governance structures.

Contribution to overall score

53%

Civil society engagement

Participation of academia, advocacy groups, and non-state actors in shaping governance and ensuring accountability.

Contribution to overall score

8%

Enabling conditions

Institutional capacity, rule of law, digital readiness, and labour protections that enable effective governance.

Contribution to overall score

38%

  • Strongest context signal: Gender Gap in Mobile Internet (100.0)
  • Skills & Literacy (100.0)
  • Cybersecurity (99.8)

Evidence for United States of America

Loading evidence explorer…