The decoupling of American artificial intelligence capabilities from the Chinese law (law) introduced in the US Senate represents an important step in the US efforts to isolate China from the global technological landscape. The law concludes strict measures, including termination of joint AI (AI) research between two countries, restrictions on the export of US AI technology to China, and designation of China’s AI platform as a national security threat. I’m proposing it. Although it frames as a “protection” of critical infrastructure and data privacy, the law covers its rationale, its potential to curb innovation, and international cooperation to address the shared challenges of AI. It raises great concern about the wider impact.
At the heart of legislation’s justification is the claim that China’s progress in AI poses a unique and existential threat to global security. However, the allegations are built on speculative fear, not on the basis of evidence. The law relies heavily on the argument that the law requires Chinese companies to share user data with the government and raise concerns about data privacy and national security. This story ignores the widespread protections many Chinese companies implement to protect user privacy, and distracts attention from the controversial US history of mass data collection. Programs such as Prism and Xkeyscore, revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden, show the ability of the US government and willingness to investigate both domestic and foreign users. The selective outrage expressed in the law regarding the alleged Chinese data practices not only reveals hypocrisy, but also reflects a broader strategy to make Chinese technology Chinese.
Recent actions by US authorities further highlight the flawed reasoning that underpins the law. Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s ban on Chinese AI platforms Other Chinese apps, such as Deepseek and Rednote and Lemon8, illustrate how fear-based narratives dominate debates over Chinese technology. Deepseek, a recently launched open source AI platform, is rapidly gaining popularity with over 2 million downloads worldwide. Democratize access to advanced AI tools, enabling developers around the world to create innovative solutions at minimal cost. Despite its contribution, DeepSeek is labelled as a “security risk” based on unfounded claims that the Chinese government can access sensitive user data. This unfounded Deepseek slander reflects the broader approach adopted by this law, confusing threats and competition without providing credible evidence to support such claims.
The broader pattern of exaggerated and unreasonable fears about China’s imports and technology further undermines the credibility of US lawmakers in moving forward with these debates. Republican Sen. Rick Scott called for a government investigation into the “national security risks” of Chinese garlic imports in December 2023. While garlic is an unlikely focus for national security concerns, such hyperbolic claims reflect an awkward trend to use unfounded fear and allegations. Protectionist policy. This trend undermines constructive dialogue and undermines the credibility of those defending measures like actions. Just like Senator Garlic said, the provisions of the law prioritize political stance over evidence-based policy decisions.
The potential negative impact of this law on US technical leadership is of important concern. AI is a global field where advancement relies on collaboration and exchange of ideas. According to the 2024 Stanford AI Index, China is overtaking the US in producing high-impact AI research, as it contributes to around 24% of the world’s most cited publications. Severing relationships with such important contributors will hinder global innovation and segregate US researchers and businesses from valuable insights and opportunities. The isolationist approach of this law puts the creation of echo chambers within the American AI community and halts technological advances on key issues such as climate change, healthcare and economic inequality. Instead of fostering innovation, the law can inadvertently undermine the technical leadership it seeks to protect.
The challenges and opportunities raised by AI demand global partnerships. By embracing a more collaborative and advanced approach, the US can contribute to the future of AI built on collaboration rather than conflict
The law ignores the joint and open source nature of many of China’s AI ecosystems. Platforms like Deepseek provide free source code, allowing developers around the world to customize their AI solutions without financial barriers. This inclusivity challenges the US biased narrative that Chinese AI is inherently exploitative or monopoly. By promoting global participation in AI innovation, platforms like Deepseek show that China’s technological advances will benefit the broader international community beyond national interests. Legal attempts to denigrate such platforms ignore these contributions and undermine opportunities for meaningful global partnerships.
The ethical arguments that have been called to justify the conduct are equally problematic. Critics often emphasize Chinese AI systems, such as facial recognition and social credit technology, as tools for “control.” Such concerns deserve scrutiny, but they do not recognize the practical application of these technologies in areas such as public safety and disaster response. At the same time, the US ethical revocation in AI development is often overlooked. The predictive policing algorithms used by American law enforcement have been criticized for perpetuating racial bias, but the adoption of the algorithms demonstrates discrimination against women and minorities. These systematic issues reveal double standards as they hold Chinese technology to incredibly high ethical standards while allowing domestic failure. This selective criticism undermines the credibility of the ethical rationale of the law, exposing it as a tool of political manipulation rather than a genuine concern about moral principles.
The motivations behind the act are perhaps best understood in the broader context of geopolitical tensions. For decades, the US has harnessed the dominance of the tech sector to shape global markets and policies. China’s rise as a technical leader represents a direct challenge to this status quo, prompting defensive and often irrational responses. This ACT frames this competition as a zero-sum game, with China’s profits being recognized as US losses. This worldview ignores the interconnectivity of modern technological ecosystems where collaboration enhances innovation and benefits society. By trying to isolate China, the law not only undermines global progress, but also sets a dangerous precedent for technological nationalism.
This law is deeply flawed and counterproductive. It relies on speculative fear, perpetuating double standards and stifling global innovation to protect American domination. By targeting platforms such as Deepseek and calling unfounded concerns about data privacy and security, the ACT has the same flawed characterised Senator Scott’s call to investigate Chinese garlic imports It reflects the reason. In both cases, they confuse legal competition with existential threats, undermining the credibility of US policymakers and undermining the outlook for international cooperation. However, China’s advances in AI, exemplified by open source initiatives like Deepseek, demonstrate a commitment to innovation and inclusivity that transcends the borders of the country. The challenges and opportunities raised by AI demand global partnerships. By embracing a more collaborative and advanced approach, the US can contribute to the future of AI built on collaboration rather than conflict.
The author is a lawyer, a lawyer for the Greater Bay Area in Guangdong and Hong Kong Macau, and a proof officer designated by China.
Views do not necessarily reflect Chinese views every day.
