The Decoupling America’s Artificial Intelligence Capabilities from China Act (the Act), introduced in the US Senate, represents a significant step in the United States’ efforts to isolate China from the global technological landscape. The legislation proposes severe measures, including the termination of collaborative artificial intelligence (AI) research between the two nations, restrictions on exporting US AI technologies to China, and the designation of Chinese AI platforms as national security threats. While framed as a “safeguard” for critical infrastructure and data privacy, the Act raises substantial concerns about its rationale, potential to stifle innovation, and broader implications for international cooperation in addressing shared challenges in AI.
Central to the justification for the Act is the claim that China’s advancements in AI pose a unique and existential threat to global security. However, this allegation is built on speculative fears rather than grounded evidence. The legislation relies heavily on the argument that Chinese companies, by law, must share user data with their government, raising concerns about data privacy and national security. This narrative conveniently ignores the extensive safeguards many Chinese firms implement to protect user privacy and deflects attention from the US’ controversial history of mass data collection. Programs like Prism and XKeyscore, revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden, demonstrate the US government’s capacity and willingness to surveil both domestic and foreign users. The selective outrage expressed in the Act over alleged Chinese data practices not only reveals hypocrisy but also reflects a broader strategy to vilify Chinese technology.
Recent actions by US officials further highlight the flawed reasoning underpinning the Act. Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s ban on the Chinese AI platform DeepSeek and other Chinese apps like RedNote and Lemon8 exemplify how fear-based narratives dominate discussions about Chinese technology. DeepSeek, an open-source AI platform launched recently, has rapidly gained popularity, with over 2 million downloads globally. It has democratized access to advanced AI tools, enabling developers worldwide to create innovative solutions at minimal cost. Despite its contributions, DeepSeek has been labeled a “security risk” based on the unsubstantiated claim that it could allow the Chinese government to access sensitive user data. This baseless vilification of DeepSeek mirrors the broader approach taken by the Act, conflating competition with threat without offering credible evidence to support such claims.
A broader pattern of exaggerated and irrational fears about Chinese imports and technologies further undermines the credibility of US lawmakers in advancing these arguments. Republican Senator Rick Scott called for a government investigation into the “national security risks” of Chinese garlic imports in December 2023. While garlic is an improbable focus for national security concerns, such hyperbolic claims reflect a troubling trend of using unsubstantiated fears and allegations to justify protectionist policies. This tendency undermines constructive dialogue and weakens the credibility of those advocating for measures like the Act. Much like the senator’s garlic remarks, the Act’s provisions prioritize political posturing over evidence-based policymaking.
The Act’s potential negative impact on the US’ technological leadership is a key concern. AI is a global field in which progress depends on collaboration and exchanging ideas. According to the 2024 Stanford AI Index, China has overtaken the US in producing high-impact AI research, contributing about 24 percent of the most-cited publications globally. Severing ties with such a significant contributor would hinder global innovation and isolate US researchers and companies from valuable insights and opportunities. The Act’s isolationist approach risks creating an echo chamber within the American AI community, stalling technological progress on critical issues such as climate change, healthcare and economic inequality. Instead of fostering innovation, the Act may inadvertently harm the technological leadership it seeks to protect.
The challenges and opportunities posed by AI demand global partnership. By embracing a more-cooperative and forward-thinking approach, the US can contribute to a future of AI that is built on collaboration, not confrontation
The Act disregards the collaborative and open-source nature of much of China’s AI ecosystem. Platforms like DeepSeek provide their source code for free, allowing developers worldwide to customize AI solutions without financial barriers. This inclusivity challenges the US biased narrative that Chinese AI is inherently exploitative or monopolistic. By fostering global participation in AI innovation, platforms like DeepSeek demonstrate that China’s technological advancements extend beyond national interests to benefit the broader international community. The Act’s attempt to vilify such platforms ignores these contributions and undermines opportunities for meaningful global partnerships.
The ethical arguments invoked to justify the Act are equally problematic. Critics often highlight Chinese AI systems, such as facial recognition and social credit technologies, as tools of “control”. While such concerns merit scrutiny, they fail to acknowledge the practical applications of these technologies in areas like public safety and disaster response. At the same time, the US’ ethical lapses in AI development are conveniently overlooked. Predictive policing algorithms used by American law enforcement have been criticized for perpetuating racial biases, while hiring algorithms have exhibited discrimination against women and minorities. These systemic issues reveal a double standard, as the Act holds Chinese technology to an impossibly high ethical standard while excusing domestic failings. This selective criticism undermines the credibility of the Act’s ethical rationale and exposes it as a tool for political maneuvering rather than a genuine concern for moral principles.
The motivations behind the Act are perhaps best understood in the context of broader geopolitical tensions. For decades, the US has leveraged its dominance in the tech sector to shape global markets and policies. The rise of China as a technological leader represents a direct challenge to this status quo, prompting a defensive and often irrational response. The Act frames this competition as a zero-sum game, where gains for China are perceived as losses for the US. This worldview ignores the interconnectedness of modern technological ecosystems, where collaboration enhances innovation and benefits societies. By attempting to isolate China, the Act not only undermines global progress but also sets a dangerous precedent for technological nationalism.
The Act is a deeply flawed and counterproductive piece of legislation. It relies on speculative fears, perpetuates double standards, and risks stifling global innovation to protect American dominance. By targeting platforms like DeepSeek and invoking unfounded concerns about data privacy and security, the Act mirrors the same flawed reasoning that characterized Senator Scott’s call to investigate Chinese garlic imports. Both cases reveal a troubling pattern of conflating legitimate competition with an existential threat, undermining US policymakers’ credibility and harming international cooperation prospects. However, China’s advancements in AI, exemplified by open-source initiatives like DeepSeek, demonstrate a commitment to innovation and inclusivity that transcends national boundaries. The challenges and opportunities posed by AI demand global partnership. By embracing a more-cooperative and forward-thinking approach, the US can contribute to a future of AI that is built on collaboration, not confrontation.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
