Trump frames unregulated AI as a way to keep ahead of China – but in fact, it harms US national security

By

-

September 25, 2026

trump-frames-unregulated-ai-as-a-way-to-keep-ahead-of-china-–-but-in-fact,-it-harms-us-national-security — Trump frames unregulated AI as a way to keep ahead of China – but in fact, it harms US national security

Amid the chorus of voices calling for a slowdown in AI advancement and more government regulation and oversight of the technology, one prominent contrarian voice stands out: that of Donald J. Trump.

The U.S president has repeatedly argued that the introduction of robust regulations to slow down progress on AI threatens U.S. national interests by enabling China to seize the advantage.

“Whoever wins AI, WINS!” Trump posted on social media on Sept. 21, 2026, and singled out China as the primary threat to America “winning” AI. He followed up with a speech at the United Nations in which he outlined his administration’s total rejection of “any attempt to construct a globalist scheme to control” artificial intelligence.

Certainly, China seizing the global lead on AI would represent an alarming setback to American strategic and economic interests. As a scholar whose research examines the intersection of international relations and technology, I contend that China’s swift advances in AI constitute one of the leading reasons why regulation of the U.S. AI industry is necessary. Paradoxical as it may sound, slowing down AI advancement in the U.S. would also decelerate China’s advances.

Even more important, recent revelations about AI “going rogue,” coupled with the astonishing growth in power and capability of new AI models, strongly suggest that an unregulated sector represents a greater security threat for the United States than the threat of a surge in capabilities by China.

Unregulated AI and security threats

Leading industry and political figures around the globe have sounded the alarm about the security threats presented by unchecked AI growth. About 8 in 10 Americans share these concerns, according to recent polling, as a large majority of Democrats, Independents and Republicans support increasing AI regulations.

These threats include heightened U.S. vulnerability to attacks from foreign nations and terrorist groups who can exploit AI advances to build more lethal weapons systems – both conventional arms and weapons of mass destruction. Advances in the sector also increase the chance of nefarious actors launching devastating cyberattacks, with AI becoming increasingly adept at identifying and exploiting cybersecurity vulnerabilities.

These concerns are known within the industry. On Sept. 10, 2026, Anthropic issued a report revealing a series of incidents in which foreign actors – some based in China, Russia and Iran – used Claude in cyber, influence, surveillance and fraud operations and to support weapons development. Google similarly detected recent attempts by actors linked to China, Russia, North Korea and Iran to use its Gemini AI model to carry out hacking, disinformation, espionage and criminal operations.

Anthropic’s report revealed “five case studies of actors using our models in ways that could support biological weapons development.”

Unregulated AI poses not just a severe security challenge but a potentially existential threat. An AI-induced nuclear missile launch, the release of super pathogens that cause pandemics and attacks on critical life-sustaining infrastructure have all been raised as potential concerns. Aside from these more extreme scenarios, unchecked AI poses a threat to the digital infrastructure that undergirds the U.S. and world economies.

Four men on a red carpet speak to dozens of people holding cameras and microphones. — U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media at the White House alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping on Sept. 24, 2026. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Slowing the speedboat

Trump may dismiss these worst-case scenarios as a “hoax,” but the national security threats are real. Trump’s argument is that the best way to protect the U.S. is to make sure American companies stay ahead of China on AI. Indeed, China’s AI models are not far behind, and China possesses an advantage in a factor vital to AI systems – electric power generation, which AI consumes in large and growing quantities.

Still, the consensus of tech experts is that the U.S. remains the world’s top AI power due to American firms’ lead in advanced models and computer chips and the scale of America’s computing power – through chips, processors and servers – as well as the level of capital investment.

However, the rapid advance of AI capabilities by American firms has helped China to accelerate its own AI industry.

China uses a process known as distillation to exploit cutting-edge U.S. AI models to train China’s own models. The process enables China to develop models nearly as powerful but much more efficient, using far fewer resources.

Beijing’s reliance on distillation, according to Matt Sheehan, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is a result of its own limited computing power, estimated at just one-tenth that of the United States. As a result of its distillation strategy, the pace of China’s AI progress is tightly linked to U.S. progress. Using Sheenan’s analogy, the relationship is much like a speedboat pulling a water skier: If the U.S. eases on the AI throttle, China will be forced to slow down as well.

Therefore, racing ahead unchecked at breakneck speed – the approach advocated by Trump – would not guarantee that the U.S. widens its AI lead. Chinese firms will continue to exploit U.S. AI progress to strengthen their offensive capabilities.

Several people walk by a billboard and a robot depicted on it. — Visitors attend an AI expo on Sept. 22, 2026, in Beijing, China. Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

Global governance and regulation

As such, rather than jeopardizing American national security, U.S. regulations that slow AI advancement could strengthen security by slowing down the Chinese government’s own access to cutting-edge AI.

The “China threat” argument against greater U.S. regulation on AI is also predicated on the notion that Beijing does not possess its own concerns about the dangers of unchecked growth in AI power, and this isn’t the case.

Chinese leaders harbor serious security and domestic affairs–related concerns about uncontrolled AI growth. Indeed, if there is one AI area where China leads the U.S., it is in regulations on AI. Consider, for example, that as far back as 2021, Beijing imposed its first major set of AI regulations.

And while top figures in the Trump administration were urging less regulation, Chinese officials were calling for the opposite. In recent months, Chinese officials have repeatedly called for greater domestic and international oversight of AI. China’s leader, Xi Jinping, has been enthusiastic about AI advances, but his speech at the 2026 World AI Conference in Shanghai urgently expressed the need for strong AI regulations and oversight.

Speaking at the U.N. Security Council’s meeting on AI and International Security on Sept. 23, 2026, Fu Cong, China’s permanent representative to the United Nations, made the case for “a consensus-based global governance framework” for AI to “build institutional guardrails that preserve international peace and security.”

Beijing appears to be framing unregulated AI advancement not as a race but as a common threat. Should Trump be convinced by such a narrative, then there may be grounds for optimism that Washington and Beijing in the near future will be able to reach agreement on AI governance and regulation – a development that would better ensure a safer future for both nations.

Court rules Trump can blacklist Anthropic for refusing to enable Claude features

By

IwPost

-

September 25, 2026

0

court-rules-trump-can-blacklist-anthropic-for-refusing-to-enable-claude-features — Court rules Trump can blacklist Anthropic for refusing to enable Claude features

A US appeals court today approved the Trump administration’s blacklisting of Anthropic technology. Judges decided the US had authority to blacklist Anthropic for withholding certain AI features even if Anthropic had no malicious intent.

In a 2-1 ruling issued by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a panel of judges said the “case raises profoundly difficult questions about the appropriate military uses of an almost unimaginably powerful new technology.” The US “raises the deeply sobering prospect of overly constrained AI models shutting down unexpectedly and thus causing important military operations to fail. Anthropic raises the deeply sobering prospect of unconstrained AI models hallucinating inappropriate targets for lethal military force,” the ruling said.

Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “must determine how best to balance the competing risks,” the court said. “In doing so here, the Secretary did not transgress any limits on his authority under the Supply Chain Security Act or the Constitution. Accordingly, we deny the petitions for review.” The same court previously denied Anthropic’s emergency motion for a stay in April.

The two judges who ruled against Anthropic were both appointed by Trump and served in the first Trump administration. Judge Gregory Katsas was previously deputy counsel to the president, and Judge Neomi Rao served in the Trump administration’s Office of Management and Budget.

Two courts, two different decisions

Anthropic sued the Trump administration in March after Trump and Hegseth ordered federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s products and banned defense contractors from doing any business with Anthropic. Anthropic may appeal today’s ruling, either by asking for an en banc review with all of the appeals court judges or by petitioning the Supreme Court.

“We respectfully disagree with the court’s decision,” an Anthropic spokesperson told CNBC. “Another federal court has already held the government’s parallel designation unlawful. We remain confident in our position and are considering all options, including further review.” Despite the ongoing legal battle, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick recently said the Trump administration and Anthropic have patched up their relationship and are “in tune.”

Two courts have been reviewing the US blacklisting of Anthropic. A judge in US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled last month that the action was illegal because Anthropic does not meet the definition of a supply-chain risk, which is limited to “the risk that an adversary may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, or otherwise subvert… a covered system.”

Today’s ruling from the DC Circuit did not dispute the district court’s primary finding. But it said the district court was tasked with reviewing whether the decision was allowed under one law while the appeals court has exclusive jurisdiction to review the decision under a different, more permissive grant of authority.

The district court decision found a violation of 10 U.S.C. § 3252, in which supply chain risks are limited to malicious actions by adversaries. The appeals court reviewed the blacklisting under 41 U.S.C. § 4713, which doesn’t have the same restrictions. Notably, Congress gave the DC Circuit appeals court exclusive jurisdiction to review procurement actions taken under Section 4713 designations.

Bad motive not required

Today’s ruling said:

We have no quarrel with the Northern District’s conclusion that use of the critical noun adversary, combined with the sinister connotation fairly pervading the string of sabotage, maliciously introduce, and otherwise subvert, indicate that bad motive is required to support a designation under section 3252. Likewise, we have no quarrel with the Northern District’s conclusion that Anthropic has acted with no such bad motive in its dealings with the Department. But as explained at length above, no such bad motive is required to support a designation under the much broader definition set forth in section 4713.

The US designated Anthropic as a supply chain risk under both 3252 and 4713. The latter statute defines “supply chain risk” as “the risk that any person may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, extract data, or otherwise manipulate the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, maintenance, disposition, or retirement” of covered technology products “so as to surveil, deny, disrupt, or otherwise manipulate the function, use, or operation of” those products or the information stored or transmitted on them, the court said.

The use of “any person” shows that the definition is not limited to adversaries or foreign entities, the court said. The court also pointed to the word “deny,” which it said applies to Anthropic preventing the US from using certain Claude features.

“In sum, we conclude that the Secretary’s concern about Anthropic disabling Claude from performing lawful actions requested by the Department qualifies as a ‘supply chain risk’ within the meaning of section 4713,” the court majority said. It also said “the Department reasonably feared that Anthropic might manipulate Claude’s design to prevent it from performing national-security functions that the Department deems contractually authorized and necessary.”

Judge’s dissent

The dissenting vote was cast by Judge Karen Henderson, a George H.W. Bush appointee. Henderson disputed the majority’s reading of the definition in 4713, saying that when “viewed in their statutory context, the verbs at issue are all directed at deliberately impeding or eavesdropping on the ‘function, use, or operation’ of a covered article that has entered the federal supply chain.”

Congress “enacted the statute in response to calls from the US intelligence community for legislation to meet the threat of ‘[h]ostile nation state and other bad actors’ infiltrating the federal government’s information and technology systems through its supply chains,” Henderson wrote. She said the definition should not be interpreted to cover “a contractor’s honest and upfront enforcement of restrictions on a covered article’s use disfavored by the government.”

Anthropic alleged, and the district court judge in California agreed, that the Trump administration illegally retaliated against the company after it refused to drop restrictions on the use of its products for lethal autonomous warfare and mass surveillance of Americans.

The appeals court said that Anthropic “encodes restrictions into Claude that prevent the model from performing tasks that Anthropic wishes to prevent. On more than one occasion, these restrictions have stopped Claude from performing tasks requested by government users. And recently, a dispute arose over whether the contractual prohibitions barred the use of Claude in an ongoing overseas military operation, leaving the Department uncertain whether Claude would perform as needed and intended.”

The case in the Northern District of California was presided over by Judge Rita Lin, a Biden appointee. Lin determined that the blacklisting violated the First Amendment. “The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics,” she wrote.

Whether it’s ‘super’ or ‘Godzilla,’ El Niño is already breaking records

By

IwPost

-

September 25, 2026

0

whether-it’s-‘super’-or-‘godzilla,’-el-nino-is-already-breaking-records — Whether it’s ‘super’ or ‘Godzilla,’ El Niño is already breaking records

By now, you’ve seen the headlines, and there’s more of them every day: It’s “jaw-dropping.” It’s poised to make global warming worse. California has just declared a statewide state of emergency. This year’s El Niño — a shift in Pacific Ocean trade winds that scrambles global weather patterns — has been hotly discussed as one of the strongest on record, and one that could bring about potentially disastrous consequences. One study projects that it may cause as many as 451,000 heat-related deaths around the world by February.

The current El Niño has also been given an array of eye-catching descriptors. When Jeffrey Shaman, a climatologist at Columbia Climate School, heard the phrase “super El Niño” for the first time earlier this year, he said, “I literally googled it.” The phrase isn’t officially used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the World Meteorological Organization. But he still sees value in the label as a way of communicating the significance of this year’s likely unprecedented El Niño to the general public.

“It’s colloquial, and there’s nothing wrong with that at all,” Shaman said.

By all accounts, this year’s El Niño will also give the world a glimpse into a future of unabated warming due to the burning of fossil fuels — and an opportunity to change course before the worst effects occur.