As the US and China unveil rival AI governance blueprints, Elif Davutoğlu explores how these policy visions reflect deeper geopolitical strategies. Framed as calls for innovation or cooperation, both documents signal a global legitimacy race in which AI governance becomes a battleground for shaping the future international order
In July 2025, two global powers released policy documents that reveal a deepening contest over the future of artificial intelligence. The Trump administration issued a sweeping new AI policy framework focused on deregulation, national innovation, and technological supremacy. Just days later, China unveiled its Global Artificial Intelligence Governance Initiative (GAGI), calling for international cooperation, multilateral standards, and ethical safeguards.
These documents present not just divergent priorities, but fundamentally different visions of global order. One is unilateral and strategic; the other is cooperative but state-directed. Yet both contribute to the same dynamic: a race to shape the narrative, norms, and institutions that will govern AI in the 21st century.
The Trump administration’s July 2025 AI policy marks a sharp pivot from the Biden-era regulatory approach. Though framed as 'cutting red tape to unleash innovation', the new plan also emphasises US dominance in frontier models, export control, and military-adjacent AI research and development. It minimises government oversight and celebrates private-sector leadership.
The Trump administration's new AI policy minimises government oversight and celebrates private-sector leadership
This is classic technonationalism: AI as a tool of economic and geopolitical leverage. The document sidelines multilateral cooperation in favour of 'trusted networks' of like-minded allies. There is little discussion of global governance or ethical risk mitigation beyond national security concerns.
In sharp contrast, China’s GAGI speaks the language of cooperation. It calls for inclusive global rulemaking, respect for sovereignty, data rights, and equitable access to AI benefits. It proposes a role for the UN and new international institutions.
Yet China’s domestic AI governance remains tightly controlled by the state. Its centralised party oversight, algorithm regulation, and strategic alignment with industrial policy reveal the dynamics of fragmented authoritarianism in China. GAGI thus reflects a soft-power projection of China’s model. It is globalist in rhetoric, but designed to legitimise its state-led approach abroad by positioning China as a rule-maker rather than a rule-taker, particularly in forums where Western influence is fading.
The US and China present sharply different governance styles. However, the same imperatives – control, legitimacy, and influence – motivate both administrations. Their documents are less about immediate policy than about agenda-setting. Each country seeks to anchor the future of AI governance in its own political and ideological model.
While the US and China differ in their governance styles, the same imperatives – control, legitimacy, and influence – motivate both administrations
The close timing of the two documents is no coincidence. It reflects a geopolitical struggle not just over technological capability, but over who defines the rules of the game.
We can read the July 2025 policy releases as performative in a new kind of arms race, in which technological supremacy and political legitimacy are at stake. The US promotes freedom and innovation, but sidelines global cooperation. China champions shared standards, but under a model that privileges centralised authority.
The risk of competing government blueprints is not just fragmentation, but a global governance vacuum in which power, not principle, dictates outcomes
The world is left with competing governance blueprints. Each is incomplete, strategic, and capable of attracting allies. The risk is not just fragmentation, but a global governance vacuum in which power, not principle, dictates outcomes.
AI governance has become not only a technical challenge, but a political one too. While the July 2025 US and Chinese documents are, of course, about how AI should be developed, they are also about who gets to decide.
As the international community struggles with regulatory challenges, these competing visions set the stage for a more fragmented and contested global future. As the global conversation on AI governance unfolds, questions emerge. Are these calls for collaboration sincere efforts to build a cooperative future? Or are they rhetorical strategies masking a deepening technological divide?
Either way, the race has begun and it is being run on a track paved with words as much as with code.
