U.S. lawmakers are demanding answers from DoorDash regarding its use of Chinese artificial intelligence models, exposing a deepening crisis where transnational corporate interests appear to override national security. This scrutiny comes as American businesses increasingly adopt systems developed in the People's Republic of China, raising alarms about the erosion of technological sovereignty.
The House Committee on Homeland Security and the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party are leading a joint investigation. They have asked DoorDash for information and documents concerning its evaluation and deployment of AI systems from China. A DoorDash spokesperson offered a corporate platitude, stating the company "proudly supports American AI leadership" and looks forward to engaging with the committees on how it "safely and responsibly use[s] AI, including American-developed frontier models and open-weight models."
Committee members cited a post from DoorDash founder Andy Fang, who noted the company delegates lower-level AI work to Kimi K2.6, a Chinese AI model developed by Moonshot AI. DoorDash's own AI research lab on X claimed Kimi K2.6 and Anthropic's Fable 5 vastly outperformed other Anthropic models, including "Sonnet 4.6 and Opus 4.8 harness at a cheaper cost." This pursuit of cost reduction and competitive capabilities by U.S. firms, the committees warned, does not erase the national security concerns tied to dependence on PRC-jurisdiction entities.
Elite Interests Over Nation
Andrew Garbarino, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, issued a stark warning. He stated, "The Chinese Communist Party is no longer just nipping at our heels in artificial intelligence; it is racing to close the gap in some of the exact capabilities that will shape the future of cybersecurity." Garbarino found recent reports of a Chinese open-weight model matching leading U.S. models in cybersecurity tasks "highly alarming." Moonshot AI's Kimi K3, released earlier this month, claims to have largely closed the performance gap with top U.S. models.
Despite some government departments banning Chinese AI models like DeepSeek, U.S. companies face no such prohibition on adoption. Tech chiefs, including Coinbase's Brian Armstrong and AI startup Lindy's Flo Crivello, have publicly championed the use of Chinese models, citing cost reduction as a primary driver. This widespread corporate embrace of foreign technology, driven by the bottom line, directly undermines national technological independence.
The committees advocate for a federal approach that scrutinizes U.S. companies' reliance on PRC-developed models. They also seek to strengthen the availability, security, and competitiveness of American open-weight alternatives. The availability of these open-weight models, many of which are Chinese-made, allows companies to download, modify, and self-host the technology, bypassing the controlled frontier models from U.S. developers like OpenAI and Anthropic.
Washington's Weak Response
President Donald Trump signed his AI executive order in early June, giving federal agencies 60 days to develop a key framework. That deadline arrived today, August 1, 2026. This period saw intense debate in Silicon Valley over AI regulation.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Nvidia's Jensen Huang were among the tech leaders who met with lawmakers and Trump administration officials in Washington, D.C., this week. Their goal: to influence upcoming decisions. Trump's executive order, light on specifics, asks AI companies to voluntarily submit models for government evaluation before public release. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick were tasked with developing the specifics.
The deadline arrived during a tense period for U.S. AI development. The tech industry's most powerful leaders weighed in on regulation, debating whether OpenAI and Anthropic should exert outsized influence. Open-weight models, largely from China, have rapidly advanced, offering cost-efficient alternatives. This prompted a fierce debate within the tech sector over whether the Trump administration should restrict or ban Chinese open-weight models. In a display of unified elite consensus, the world's leading tech executives opposed any potential ban.
Huang released a letter urging policymakers to avoid "premature restrictions," a sentiment fully supported by Elon Musk. Microsoft, Meta, Palantir, and dozens of other companies signed the letter, with OpenAI joining later. Anthropic, however, outlined its position separately. Even former AI czar David Sacks, still influential within the administration, has been a vocal opponent of a ban. This united front from globalist tech interests highlights the challenge to national sovereignty.
Trump's executive order framework will involve a classified benchmarking process to assess cyber capabilities and determine "covered frontier models." It will also encourage companies to work with the government to identify "trusted partners" for model access. While this framework aims for control, the initial rollout of U.S. models faced hurdles. Anthropic disabled access to its Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models soon after the executive order due to a Commerce Department export control directive. Two weeks later, OpenAI agreed to limit its GPT-5.6 model series rollout to "trusted partners" at government request. Both companies eventually rolled out their models more broadly, demonstrating the limited long-term impact of initial government efforts.
White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, in a rare post on X in late June, claimed that "the government and private sector have worked together in a way we have never seen before and this foundation of America First is unprecedented." She asserted, "Our shared priority remains: get the best tech deployed as quickly and safely as possible." This rhetoric of "America First" and "shared priority" rings hollow against the backdrop of corporate elites actively resisting national controls and prioritizing global market access over the nation's technological independence.
"media