Will Chinese AI companies slow down? A top House Democrat wants answers

• Rep. Ro Khanna is urging a U.S.–China AI treaty as President Trump meets tech CEOs.
• The proposal aims to prevent AI from causing global harm.
• Securing agreement from both governments faces significant diplomatic hurdles.

President Donald Trump is set to meet technology and artificial‑intelligence CEOs in Washington, while Rep. Ro Khanna (D‑CA) has sent letters demanding a bilateral treaty with China to curb the risks of unchecked AI development. The clash of approaches highlights growing concern in Congress over AI’s potential to destabilize global security.

What the proposed treaty would cover

Khanna’s letters, obtained exclusively, call for a formal agreement that would bind both the United States and China to shared standards on AI safety, testing and deployment. The draft suggests mechanisms for joint oversight, data‑sharing on high‑risk algorithms, and penalties for violations. By framing AI as a matter of national security, the congressman hopes to move the issue from industry self‑regulation to a government‑level pact. In practice, such a pact would require each side to establish a dedicated inter‑agency committee that reviews new AI models before they are released, sets thresholds for acceptable error rates, and creates a transparent reporting system that logs any unexpected behavior. The treaty would also outline procedures for mutual inspections, allowing experts from one country to audit the other’s testing facilities, thereby ensuring that safety protocols are applied consistently.

Why the timing matters

Trump’s upcoming roundtable with AI leaders comes as Washington grapples with rapid advances in generative models and autonomous systems. The president’s outreach signals a willingness to engage the private sector, yet Khanna’s push for a treaty underscores a parallel push for legislative oversight. The juxtaposition of executive‑industry dialogue and congressional demand for a treaty could shape policy direction for months to come. The urgency is amplified by the fact that many of the technologies being discussed can be repurposed for military applications, cyber‑operations, or large‑scale misinformation campaigns; therefore, the timing of a coordinated diplomatic effort could either pre‑empt a cascade of unintended consequences or allow them to unfold unchecked. The current environment of heightened geopolitical tension makes the prospect of a cooperative framework both more challenging and more necessary, as each side seeks reassurance that the other will not exploit AI breakthroughs to gain an unfair strategic advantage.

What obstacles lie ahead

Securing a bilateral AI accord will require both nations to acknowledge mutual risk. Beijing has not publicly committed to any AI‑specific treaty, and Washington’s own regulatory framework remains fragmented. The letters note that “wrangling leaders in both countries to take action could be a long shot,” reflecting the diplomatic and strategic challenges of aligning two rival powers on emerging technology. Among the practical hurdles are differences in how each country defines “high‑risk” AI, the extent to which state‑owned enterprises are involved in development, and the level of transparency each is willing to grant to foreign auditors. Trust‑building measures, such as joint research pilots or shared safety‑testing labs, could help bridge these gaps, but they would also require a level of openness that both sides have historically been reluctant to provide.

What happens next will depend on whether the White House incorporates Khanna’s suggestions into its broader AI strategy and whether Beijing signals openness to dialogue. A concrete treaty could emerge if both sides see AI as a shared threat rather than a competitive edge; absent that, the debate may remain confined to congressional hearings and private‑sector meetings. Observers will be watching for any indication that the administration will issue a formal request for a diplomatic channel dedicated to AI safety, as well as any public statements from Chinese officials that hint at a willingness to engage. The next steps may also include the formation of a bipartisan working group in Congress to draft legislation that mirrors the proposed treaty’s provisions, thereby creating domestic pressure that could influence international negotiations. The trajectory of this effort will be shaped by how quickly policymakers can translate technical concerns into concrete policy instruments and whether they can sustain momentum in the face of competing national‑security priorities.

Source: The Verge.