Hi friends,
Imagine that the United States agrees to stop developing its most advanced artificial intelligence (super intelligence).
American companies obey. Researchers close projects. New systems must pass through layers of government approval. Smaller companies cannot afford the lawyers, fees, and delays. Some give up. Others sell to the few giant corporations that can afford to comply.
Now ask the most important question: Would China stop too?
Would Russia? Iran? North Korea? Criminal organizations? Secret military programs?
Of course not.
That is the central weakness in proposals for a worldwide pause or ban on advanced AI. Rules are most effective against people and nations willing to follow them. The countries and groups we fear most may be the least likely to obey.
AI Is Already Part of National Security
Artificial intelligence is not simply a clever way to write an email or create a picture. It is becoming part of cybersecurity, military planning, intelligence analysis, manufacturing, medicine, scientific research, transportation, agriculture, and energy.
It can help find computer attacks faster, study large amounts of intelligence, identify equipment problems, improve weapons defenses, discover new medicines, and strengthen factories and supply chains.
That does not make every use wise or safe. It does mean that America cannot treat AI leadership as optional.
The 2026 Annual Threat Assessment from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence calls China the most capable U.S. competitor in artificial intelligence. It says China aims to replace the United States as the global AI leader by 2030. AI is also being used to assist weapons design, targeting, and battlefield decisions.
If America steps back, the technology will not disappear. Leadership will move somewhere else.
And whoever leads will have great influence over the technology, the standards, and the values built into the systems used around the world.
A Worldwide Ban Would Not Create a Worldwide Reality
History gives us every reason not to believe that every government would honor a promise simply because an international body - or anyone else - approved it.
Nations have signed treaties and still pursued nuclear weapons, missiles, biological programs, cyberattacks, and other prohibited activities. Agreements can sometimes reduce danger, but only when they are narrow, verifiable, reciprocal, and backed by consequences.
AI makes verification especially difficult. A nuclear program requires specialized materials and large facilities. Advanced software can be copied, hidden, moved, and improved behind closed doors. Computing equipment can be spread among companies, universities, government agencies, and military sites.
Who would inspect every computer system in China? Who would make a hostile government reveal a secret model? What would happen after cheating was discovered? Would law-abiding countries remain restricted while the violator gained ground?
Calling a policy “global” does not make compliance global. Yes, we’ve seen that before.
Cooperation Is Not the Same as Surrender
The United States should communicate with allies—and even with rivals—about military misunderstandings, cyber threats, dangerous accidents, and other serious risks. Secure systems, testing standards, emergency contacts, and clear rules for the use of AI in nuclear command decisions are all reasonable subjects for discussion.
But cooperation does not extend to giving an international organization authority over American research, businesses, speech, national defense, or anything else.
China is openly promoting a larger international system for AI governance. It is fair to ask what values would guide such a system. Would a government that uses censorship and surveillance help decide what American AI may say? Would unelected international officials gain influence over American technology? Could “safety” rules be used to pressure models to accept approved political views?
American sovereignty is not a bargaining chip. Neither are the First Amendment, free inquiry, private enterprise, or the right of citizens to hold their government accountable.
Leadership Does Not Mean No Rules
Rejecting a sweeping ban does not mean being foolish about risks.
AI can be used/abused by bad actors. An AI agent with network access and ineffective guardrails could cause harm. High-risk uses require diligence and human oversight.
Fraud is still fraud when AI is involved. Theft is still theft. Companies must be responsible for defective products and unlawful conduct.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology already offers a voluntary framework for managing AI risks. It emphasizes systems that are reliable, secure, transparent, privacy-conscious, and accountable. That is a far more practical starting point. And much smarter that giving away authority to some unelected authority.
We should also ask who benefits from any proposed rule. Does it protect the public—or protect the largest companies from competition? Could a small American developer afford the required testing, licenses, lawyers, and insurance? Are the companies requesting regulation also helping write rules that their smaller competitors cannot meet?
Those questions are not anti-safety. They are part of responsible oversight.
What Kind of Future Do We Want?
America has never advanced by promising that every new tool would be risk-free. We advanced by inventing, testing, correcting mistakes, enforcing responsibility, and refusing to let fear stop progress.
The better path is develop AI, protect its critical technology, secure its supply chains, train American workers, preserve competition, and work with trusted allies. Safeguard where failures could cause serious harm. Keep humans responsible for consequential decisions. And refuse to hand control of America’s future to hostile nations, international authorities, or a small circle of government and corporate gatekeepers.
AI will serve people. It already does. It will also help strengthen and further America for Americans.
The technology will continue to develop. America must lead, its values must shape it.
Above all, humans remain responsible.
Sources:
1. White House, “America’s AI Action Plan”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2025/07/white-house-unveils-americas-ai-action-plan/
2. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, “2026 Annual Threat Assessment”
https://www.odni.gov/12660/pr-03-26/
3. DNI testimony on China, AI, weapons design, targeting, and battlefield decision-making
https://www.odni.gov/12670/dni-gabbard-opening-statement-as-delivered-to-ssci-on-2026-annual-threat-assessment-of-the-u-s-intelligence-community/
4. NIST, Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework
https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework
5. NIST, AI Risk Management Framework FAQ
https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework/ai-risk-management-framework-faqs
6. CISA, AI Cybersecurity Collaboration Playbook
https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/alerts/2025/01/14/cisa-releases-jcdc-ai-cybersecurity-collaboration-playbook-and-fact-sheet
7. 2026 World Artificial Intelligence Conference statement on global AI governance
https://jm.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/zgxw/202607/t20260717_11984715.htm
As always, do your own research and make up your own mind.
White paper on land and water rights: Property Rights and Freedom: A White Paper on America’s Disappearing Land (8/13/2025)
United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.
VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html
Disclaimer:
As always, do your own research and make up your own mind. This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims or statements are based on publicly available sources and are presented as analysis and opinion, not legal conclusions.
No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual, company, or government entity unless such claims are supported by formal public records or verified legal documents. The views expressed here reflect my personal perspective on property rights and land use issues.
While I strive for accuracy and transparency, readers are encouraged to verify all details using the official sources and references provided. Any references to third-party material are included solely for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.
If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to preserve context and clarity for all readers.
Until next time…
Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?
Some housekeeping…
Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.
You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.
Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!