Is AI the exception to ‘America First'?
The AI Action Plan that President Donald Trump rolled out last week contained quite an easter egg for globalists.
In many ways, the 28-page document was very much in line with Trump's swaggering, chest-puffing attitude toward foreign policy. It took an 'America first' approach that rhetorically paralleled the administration's punishing tariff threats, withdrawal from 'woke' UNESCO and drive-by references to 'the evil of globalism.'
But packed into the AI plan's pages — page 20, to be exact — was a pivot: a call to forge 'an enduring global alliance' on the technology.
The plan gets pretty specific. It calls for the State and Commerce departments to leverage the U.S. position in international bodies — it names the United Nations, the OECD, G7, G20 and the International Telecommunication Union, among others — to advocate standards and governance approaches that 'reflect American values.' (If you're not familiar, the ITU is a 150-year-old UN agency that sets rules for global telecom and tech infrastructure — and has been the subject of a global power struggle before.)
So wait — did AI just carve out its own exception to 'America First'? And what does that mean for America's increasingly fragile relationships with Western allies?
European diplomats I called from Germany, France and Brussels declined to comment.
Karsten Wildberger, Germany's digital minister, attended the AI Action Plan announcement in Washington and nodded to the sense of alliance in a CNN interview: 'Well, look, Germany and Europe, we are great partners of the U.S. — 75 percent of our cloud services is serviced by great American tech companies, and we value this partnership.'
Ronan Murphy, director of the tech policy program at the Center for European Policy Analysis in Washington, told DFD that although he saw the theme of the plan as 'very much America First, AI dominance,' he agreed there was a vibe shift when it comes to how to actually push that agenda.
'The outright acknowledgement that there is a benefit to working with others in this technology is a little bit new, for this administration,' Murphy said.
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy did not immediately respond to questions from DFD.
One group that has long advocated for the U.S. to take a more robust role in AI on the world stage is the Special Competitive Studies Project, founded in 2021 by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt.
The group submitted its recommendations to the White House ahead of the release of the plan. Joe Wang, vice president of global affairs, said he saw SCSP's ideas reflected in the action plan's third pillar, which reads: 'To succeed in the global AI competition, America must do more than promote AI within its own borders. The United States must also drive adoption of American AI systems, computing hardware, and standards throughout the world.'
While there are some calls in the action plan for tracking risks, Wang said the export of the tech stack for AI was paramount: 'If we are not the ones doing that, China will be.'
As if on cue, China said Saturday that it planned to launch a new world AI organization, with a focus on the Global South.
'We should strengthen coordination to form a global AI governance framework that has broad consensus as soon as possible,' Premier Li Qiang told the annual World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai, according to Channel News Asia.
In light of the race with China, any restrictions on American technology could be seen as slowing down Team USA, or the 'enduring global alliance' the AI plan would seek to build.
Some of those restrictions still come from American allies — and are still causing arguments. Last week, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick pledged to use tariff negotiations to whack at digital services taxes that U.S. tech firms complain unfairly target them. 'Donald Trump's got these tech companies back and we're working on it,' Lutnick said. 'You saw, we got rid of it in Canada, we got rid of it in all sorts of countries, they knock it down, that's one of our key objectives.'
And House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is on a junket to Brussels and London this week blasting European tech regulations. His work builds on the comments Vice President JD Vance made to the Paris AI Action Summit in February: 'The AI future is not going to be won by hand-wringing about safety. It will be won by building -- from reliable power plants to the manufacturing facilities that can produce the chips of the future.'
Bluster aside, the U.S. just reached a trade deal with the EU that skipped over digital taxes or regulation.
Ironically, the drive to beat China may be a moderating force for the America First AI policy machine.
Wang, at SCSP, said as Washington and Beijing hustle to build out AI infrastructure across the world, the U.S. offers an advantage. China's earlier 'Belt and Road' initiative left countries saddled with 'predatory' giant projects and expensive maintenance, he said. One recent analysis found China is the largest debt collector in the developing world. China's new AI plan is 'the next generation of how China can leverage a new tech ecosystem to make sure partners remain tied to China in a way that is advantageous to China, not the partner countries,' Wang said.
By contrast, he said, 'The partnership we operate is a more cooperative system.'
Tesla's robotaxis red light
Tesla hit a permitting snag with its plans to debut robotaxis in San Francisco over the weekend, reports POLITICO's California Decoded team.
Tesla initially informed staff last week it would launch the robotaxis in the city as soon as that Friday, Business Insider reported. But local officials told the Decoded team that Tesla never applied for the permits to do so — even with safety drivers behind the wheel. The California Public Utilities Commission told Decoded that Tesla notified the agency it would offer the service to families and friends of employees, and certain members of the public.
'If Tesla actually deploys its AVs in San Francisco without permits, these vehicles should be seized and impounded,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener told POLITICO. 'We have permitting & safety rules for a reason. Elon Musk isn't exempt from those rules.'
The warnings may have worked. Members of the Decoded team report that they didn't see any Tesla robotaxis on San Francisco's streets this weekend.
Tesla did not respond to an inquiry from DFD.
X to comply with Irish social media law
X implemented age verification and parental control measures over the weekend to abide by the terms of Ireland's Online Safety Code, POLITICO's Eliza Gkritsi reports.
That law, which went into effect on July 21, requires sites hosting adult content to implement practices to protect minors. Ireland's media regulation agency, Coimisiún na Meán, said last Wednesday that X had not taken any actions to comply with the code, and requested that the company provide information about its plans to do so.
Coimisiún na Meán told POLITICO on Monday that X had implemented the measures for minors, but Irish regulators said they are still determining whether those steps are sufficient.
The company is currently challenging the Online Safety Code in Irish courts.
post of the day
THE FUTURE IN 5 LINKS
Stay in touch with the whole team: Aaron Mak (amak@politico.com); Mohar Chatterjee (mchatterjee@politico.com); Steve Heuser (sheuser@politico.com); Nate Robson (nrobson@politico.com); and Daniella Cheslow (dcheslow@politico.com).
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Xiaomi Unveils New AI Voice Model to Boost Auto, Home Tech
(Bloomberg) — Xiaomi Corp. (XIACY, XIACF) on Monday released an open-source voice model to complement its automotive and home appliance technologies, further heating up the race to build AI tools for more than just text. We Should All Be Biking Along the Beach Seeking Relief From Heat and Smog, Cities Follow the Wind Chicago Curbs Hiring, Travel to Tackle $1 Billion Budget Hole NYC Mayor Adams Gives Bally's Bronx Casino Plan a Second Chance The new MiDashengLM-7B is based on Xiaomi's foundational voice model, which has been deployed in cars and smart home gadgets, with integration of Alibaba Group Holding Ltd.'s open-source Qwen2.5-Omni-7B. The Beijing-based phone and auto maker detailed the advancements and provided benchmarks in a post on its WeChat account. Xiaomi has been aggressively pursuing new growth drivers outside of its core smartphone business, with electric vehicles now fast becoming one of its priority business areas. At the same time, investing in the development of artificial intelligence has grown into an overriding priority across China's tech sector, and many of the leading companies have opted to make their work open source to secure customers. Major Chinese internet companies from Alibaba to Tencent Holdings Ltd. have released various models that can handle images, video and sound in recent months to better compete with the likes of OpenAI's Sora. Both US President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping have emphasized the need for their countries to secure a leading position in the AI race. How Podcast-Obsessed Tech Investors Made a New Media Industry Russia Builds a New Web Around Kremlin's Handpicked Super App Everyone Loves to Hate Wind Power. Scotland Found a Way to Make It Pay Off What's Really Behind Those Rosy GDP Numbers? Cage-Free Eggs Are Booming in the US, Despite Cost and Trump's Efforts ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign up for Yahoo Finance's Week in Tech By subscribing, you are agreeing to Yahoo's Terms and Privacy Policy
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
India's Bharti Airtel launches cloud services for telecom operators
(Reuters) -Bharti Airtel, India's no. 2 telco, said on Monday its digital arm Xtelify launched a cloud platform which can optimise up to 40% in cloud spends for Indian businesses. The company said it also entered a partnership with Singtel, Airtel Africa and Globe Telecom for a newly launched AI platform. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data


Newsweek
8 minutes ago
- Newsweek
We Must Protect American Courtrooms From Foreign Interference
In most American courtrooms today, a party in court could be financed by foreign interests (and other unrelated third parties) without the other party ever knowing it. This alternate funder may be an investor hoping for uncorrelated returns, a wealthy donor with personal or business interests in the case, or an affiliate of an adversarial nation seeking to undermine U.S. competitiveness. The third-party litigation funding industry operates in the Wild West. Any outside group can pay the bills for a party in a legal dispute. They do this often in exchange for a percentage of an eventual settlement. Absent a handful of states that have passed disclosure laws affecting their own state court systems, the vast majority of state and federal courts do not require parties to disclose who's paying their legal costs—not to other parties and not even to the presiding judge. A stone sign for the United States Court House in downtown Los Angeles, Calif. is pictured. A stone sign for the United States Court House in downtown Los Angeles, Calif. is pictured. Getty Images But disclosure is critical and not just for transparency's sake. Incentives matter in the courtroom. The American civil litigation system is premised on fairness, impartiality, and the pursuit of justice. If a party's funders have hidden motives that stray from the desire to fairly resolve a dispute, trust in the system is put at risk. Foreign sources of litigation funding introduce a whole new set of perverse incentives. A foreign funder may finance a case in order to gain access to sensitive intellectual property or even to evade sanctions that prohibit transactions or investments in U.S. capital markets. Also, since litigation funders have their own monetary and non-monetary goals, the funder may push its client to demand steeper settlement terms than the client would otherwise consider. These are not hypothetical situations. In 2024, Bloomberg Law reported that a group of sanctioned Russian billionaires created an investment fund to back bankruptcy lawsuits in New York and London thus allowing the oligarchs to steer (launder) tens of millions into western financial institutions. In another instance, China-based technology firm PurpleVine financed several intellectual property lawsuits against Samsung. This was discovered by a lone overseeing judge in Delaware who luckily requires litigation financing disclosure in his courtroom. Had the case not crossed his desk, the defendants may never have known that their case was hardly a mere legal challenge but, in actuality, a case with national security importance. Foreign donors may also fund lawsuits that advance their personal agendas. Last year, Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filings revealed that an Australian mining billionaire was paying the legal bills for a coalition of environmental nonprofits in their lawsuit against ExxonMobil. The billionaire, Andrew Forrest, runs a mining empire that he aims to convert into a clean-energy provider—demonstrating both ideological and anticompetitive reasons to target an American oil major that he would not otherwise have standing to sue. This backdoor litigation is getting foreign companies and even foreign governments into American courtrooms they otherwise wouldn't be able to access. Since the third-party litigation funding industry is entirely unregulated, each of these examples only came to light by accident: strong investigative reporting; a lone judge's standing transparency order; and a buried FARA filing. But in each instance, the discovery of foreign funding changed both public perception and legal strategy. Routine civil suits became vehicles for money laundering, corporate espionage, and personal grievance. Unregulated third-party litigation financing is a crucial vulnerability for American competitiveness and national security. In order to secure a just and fair civil justice system, it's only common sense that parties should know who they're up against. We must act quickly as this "hidden party" industry is growing at a pace stressing the non-existent regulatory regime. One estimate values the global market at $17.5 billion in 2025, and it is forecasted to grow to $67.2 billion by 2037. Naturally, it's also becoming more complex. Opportunistic actors are developing secondary markets—a "stock exchange for lawsuits"—which, if left unregulated as well, will only create new avenues for foreign actors to distort the civil justice system and surreptitiously move capital. Regulators can be certain that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and other adversarial nations have taken notice of this influx of cash into the industry. The CCP may be responsible for a significant part of this cash flow, but we cannot be sure. Under the current system, neither national security officials nor legal professionals have any way to discern the source of billions of dollars propping up civil suits from behind the curtain. A number of bills in state legislatures and in Congress have been introduced to require disclosure of any third-party litigation financing—of foreign funding in particular. This is a welcome development. Lawmakers in Washington and in statehouses across the country should move with alacrity and act on this issue before American companies, our justice system, and our capital markets are subjected to further foreign meddling. Former Representative Michael Patrick Flanagan (R-Ill.) previously represented the 5th District of Illinois in the U.S. House of Representatives and sat on the Committee on the Judiciary. An attorney, he previously served in the U.S. Army and retired at the rank of captain. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.