Chinese AI firms DeepSeek and Moonshot have been invited to brief the UN Security Council on AI safety this week, according to sources. This unprecedented move positions Beijing-aligned technology companies at the heart of global AI governance discussions, bypassing national sovereignty in favor of a transnational framework. The UN Security Council discussion on AI safety and governance expects invited firms to make statements, as reported by Reuters today.
This development unfolds as the Trump administration grapples with a profound AI safety dilemma, detailed in an analysis published by The Diplomat today. The administration faces domestic pressure to slow AI development, yet fears any such slowdown would directly benefit China. Tighter controls on chips, compute, and access to American models are seen as a potential strategy to impede Chinese AI advancement instead.
Globalist Forum for Beijing
The invitation to Chinese firms for a UN briefing underscores a push for a post-national order in critical technology. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent issued a stark warning in July: “no day after tomorrow if China wins” on AI, adding that “nothing [else] would matter.” President Donald Trump himself stated that “whoever wins AI wins,” emphasizing the national stakes. Yet, the UN proceeds with a forum that elevates Chinese influence.
Public sentiment in America reveals deep anxieties. A new Politico poll found 63 percent of respondents saw a real chance that AI could wipe out humanity. A CBS News/YouGov survey indicated most Americans want AI development slowed, though not stopped. This widespread concern about existential risks is being channeled into globalist solutions that may compromise national security.
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, who published an essay “We Must Pace the Frontier” 10 days ago, suggested an “attempt to coordinate with authoritarian governments, to the extent this is possible.” Beijing, he noted, is at the top of that list. Amodei also urged keeping “powerful AI chips or semiconductor manufacturing equipment” out of Chinese hands, closing “chip smuggling operations,” and hardening labs against theft of model weights. He agreed with Bessent that “a Chinese lead in AI would pose grave danger for the United States and the world.”
The Cost of 'Coordination'
Despite these warnings, the push for transnational coordination continues. The NSA, FBI, and CISA jointly accused six Chinese developers, including DeepSeek and Alibaba, of industrial-scale distillation of American frontier models earlier this month. Bessent had warned in July that Washington could sanction firms found stealing from American models. This alleged theft directly undermines American innovation and national security, yet Chinese firms are now invited to shape global rules.
Beijing’s Foreign Ministry responded to Amodei’s essay by warning that “fearmongering, confrontation and vicious competition” would disrupt global AI governance. The state-run Global Times called the slowdown push a “Cold War playbook” for the sector. China’s Commerce Ministry threatened “resolute countermeasures” if Washington uses the distillation accusations to suppress Chinese firms, even suggesting the resurrection of rare earth export controls suspended under the Busan truce.
Two of China’s most senior AI governance figures, Xue Lan and Zeng Yi, joined a Capitol Hill discussion convened by Senator Bernie Sanders this spring. Xue, who chairs China’s national expert committee on AI governance, called for “safe zones” where American and Chinese scientists can build safety standards and protocols together. Zeng, dean of the Beijing Institute of AI Safety and Governance, warned last week that AI’s catastrophic risks, including “the hidden danger of human extinction,” are mounting daily. Both helped draft China’s national AI governance principles.
National Interest vs. Transnational Agenda
Bessent proposed a standing China-U.S. AI dialogue in New York 2 days ago, with a mechanism for each side to flag AI incidents threatening national security. AI consultations Trump and Xi discussed in Beijing in May were never formalized. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stated chip export controls were not part of these AI safety mechanism discussions. Past China-U.S. crisis management mechanisms have a poor record, as evidenced by the February 2023 Chinese high-altitude balloon incident.
Amodei argued that restrictions “increase the leverage held by democracies and make an agreement more likely in the future.” He wrote that sharing information about misaligned models can have value even without formal agreements. The Trump-Xi summit could produce a first substantive commitment that neither side will use AI to produce biological weapons. However, the administration’s primary response to calls for slowing AI development is to force China to slow down instead. This strategy, while potentially popular domestically, risks undermining American AI safety and scuttling a crucial China-U.S. channel on AI risk before it even begins, according to The Diplomat analysis.