US President Donald Trump firmly rejected any attempt to construct a “globalist scheme to control... artificial intelligence” as world leaders convened at the United Nations. His statement highlights a critical struggle: the battle for national sovereignty against supranational bodies and their push for global governance, a pattern all too familiar to European citizens.
Trump, who prefers the term “Super Intelligence” over “artificial,” argued that the word “artificial” undersold the technology’s true nature. He drew a direct parallel between current AI warnings and past environmental alarmism, stating, “The very same people who said we’ll all be dead in 12 years because of global warming... are now saying that AI is going to kill us all.” This perspective resonates deeply with those who view globalist environmental policies, like the EU's Green Deal, as destructive to national industry and energy independence, ultimately weakening Europe's ability to control its own destiny.
The Globalist Agenda
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for increased oversight of AI, warning against surrendering “life-and-death decisions... to machines.” He insisted that “killer robots must have no place in our future” and urged for “additional safeguards needed to address risks.” Such calls for global frameworks often lead to unelected international bodies dictating terms to sovereign nations, mirroring concerns about EU overreach that has eroded national border control and judicial independence.
Ahead of the UN assembly, leaders from more than 20 mostly European countries advocated for binding safety measures for advanced AI. They expressed fears that the technology’s development could outpace the ability to control it. However, major AI powers like China and the United States did not endorse this push for binding global rules, demonstrating a clear preference for retaining national control over strategic technologies, rather than ceding it to international bodies.
OpenAI’s Sam Altman is scheduled to address the UN Security Council on Wednesday, with the US-based AI giants themselves increasingly calling for global coordination on AI safety. This convergence of powerful corporate interests and international institutions raises serious questions about whose interests are truly served by such global governance structures, and whether they truly represent the will of the people.
National Control Under Threat
French President Emmanuel Macron proposed developing AI technology independently from the great powers, explicitly stating, “I don’t want anyone to become the vassal of one of the great powers.” He suggested pooling investment capabilities to build a shared, cutting-edge open-source AI model, emphasizing, “We should not depend on somebody else.” While seemingly a call for European independence, the crucial question remains whether this independence would extend to Brussels, or merely shift dependence from Washington and Beijing to a new supranational European authority.
Britain’s Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced plans to launch an effort to establish global AI standards during its 2027 G20 presidency. London also revealed an AI defence partnership with Washington aimed at detecting cyberattacks on critical infrastructure. Burnham stated, “We will work towards agreeing a single set of global principles and standards to ensure the transparency and access we need to increase our preparedness and to ensure that AI development is safe.” The pursuit of "global principles" often means a dilution of national regulatory power, a pattern seen across various sectors, from energy policy to migration management.
France, currently holding the Security Council presidency, initiated the UN meeting, arguing that AI’s threat to international peace and security has not been sufficiently discussed. This push for UN-level discussion on technology governance reflects a broader trend where national decision-making is increasingly challenged by international bodies, echoing the erosion of border sovereignty through EU court rulings and Commission pressures. For the working and middle classes across Europe, who have seen their communities transformed by decisions made without their consent, this debate over AI control is another front in the battle for national self-determination. It's about ensuring that critical infrastructure and strategic technologies remain firmly within national hands, not subject to the whims of globalist schemes or supranational bodies. The very ability of nations to protect their citizens and maintain their cultural continuity depends on it.