China’s AI Governance Offensive Threatens U.S. Tech Leadership

China’s diplomats are on an “AI governance” offensive. At a May 5 United Nations meeting, China’s vice minister of science and technology championed China’s role in shaping U.N.-led frameworks that determine how the technology should be built and used. Just a week earlier, two top Chinese AI experts actively involved in Beijing’s governance efforts appeared by video on a Capitol Hill panel discussion hosted by Senator Bernie Sanders , touting China’s contributions to AI safety and cooperation.

Norms and standards on AI development and applications are still being defined. Being a standards-setter rather than a standards-follower can simultaneously solidify a country’s technological leadership and ensure its companies retain an edge in global markets. Even as the United States maintains its lead in frontier AI capabilities , the rapid proliferation and adoption of lower-cost open-weight Chinese models not only poses security risks but also risks entrenching Chinese standards. Washington has traditionally advocated for a light-touch regulatory approach to AI, although this is potentially changing since Anthropic announced that its Mythos model was able to exploit zero-day cyber security vulnerabilities at unprecedented scale. It also remains leery of multilateral fora. In contrast, the Chinese government has positioned itself as a public goods provider in global AI governance, gaining diplomatic ground in developing countries with lofty rhetoric of “development-centric” AI and “inclusiveness .” In the last few years, China has proposed a flurry of multilateral initiatives, including the 2023 Global AI Governance Initiative , 2024 AI Capacity-Building Action Plan for Good and for All , and 2025 Global AI Governance Action Plan . In addition to the political and reputational payoffs, the continued diffusion of Beijing’s approach to AI governance and regulatory standards promises to substantially harm U.S. competitive positioning in global markets — not only by lowering barriers for Chinese companies seeking to export their AI models, but also by increasing costs, friction, and political dilemmas for American AI firms. But this outcome is not yet predetermined. Global AI regulatory regimes (and China’s ultimate influence) are still being decided. national security and economic competitiveness, it would be short-sighted for Washington to stand aside while Beijing takes the lead. Even if Chinese engagement has been more performative than substantive , Beijing still stands to reap diplomatic and reputational payoffs in the rest of the world.

Key points

• Norms and standards on AI development and applications are still being defined.
• Being a standards-setter rather than a standards-follower can simultaneously solidify a country’s technological leadership and ensure its companies retain an edge in global markets.
• Even as the United States maintains its lead in frontier AI capabilities , the rapid proliferation and adoption of lower-cost open-weight Chinese models not only poses security risks but also risks…
• Washington has traditionally advocated for a light-touch regulatory approach to AI, although this is potentially changing since Anthropic announced that its Mythos model was able to exploit zero-da…
• It also remains leery of multilateral fora.