Mike Waltz’s role at the UN should promote active US leadership to confront China’s push to institutionalize its AI governance model on the global stage.
Last month, during the World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai, China released its sweeping “Global AI Governance Action Plan,” offering a multilateral regulatory framework centered on safety and transparency but rooted firmly in Beijing’s development priorities. This occurred at a moment when the United States remained deeply engaged in domestic regulation debates, raising important strategic questions about who will shape the next generation of artificial intelligence (AI) norms.
Artificial intelligence is fast becoming the central axis of global economic, political, and military power. The latest data show US private investment in AI reached $109 billion in 2024, nearly twelve times China’s $9.3 billion, and the United States leads in the quantity of frontier AI models (forty compared to China’s fifteen). Yet China now leads in global AI-related patent filings and academic output. Although the United States holds roughly 75 percent of compute capacity today, China is rapidly increasing its share.
The UN’s Role in AI Rules
The United Nations (UN) is increasingly the arena where the rules of AI will crystallize. Once norms are entrenched through UN agencies and conventions, they are extremely difficult to reverse. This dynamic mirrors past instances such as maritime governance. If China successfully places its framework at the institutional core of the UN—but the United States is disengaged—it risks ceding normative leadership.
UN decision-making is driven by blocs and coalitions rather than merit. Authoritarian regimes like China have mastered that system. Chinese influence already runs deep in agencies such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). It now looks well-positioned to shape AI governance under the guise of multilateral norms.
China’s proposals exhibit worrying emphases. Requirements for algorithmic transparency may normalize government access to sensitive proprietary systems. Global moderation standards could serve as censorship tools under the guise of user protection. Uniform compliance mandates would stifle innovation among open societies while offering an advantage to state-backed firms.
The United States Must Be an Active Participant in AI Rule Setting
Disengagement is not an option. The United States must participate vigorously in rule-setting forums. That begins by appointing a strongly positioned ambassador at the UN who understands both the technology and its geopolitical implications.
Soon-to-be Ambassador Mike Waltz seems to be leaning into that role. At his July confirmation hearing, he emphasized the need to counter China’s influence at the UN and reform the institution around peacemaking and accountability. He described the United States as the UN’s largest budget contributor and warned that China’s position as the second largest contributor must be met with a stronger US voice.
Waltz’s record further reinforces his suitability. As a Green Beret and national security adviser, he frames AI strategy through a security lens. He has sharply defined the US rivalry with China as a new Cold War and has been a leading voice in the China Task Force, advocating for tighter export controls on AI technologies and more resilient supply chains. At his confirmation hearing, he echoed this approach, pledging to “block and tackle” Chinese influence at the UN.
Priorities for Mike Waltz as the US Ambassador to the UN
But what should Waltz do concretely as ambassador to the UN? First, he must launch UN-centered working groups of like-minded nations—including Japan, the United Kingdom, India, and allies—to define alternative AI governance standards built around transparency, data innovation, and regulatory restraint. He should move proactively rather than waiting to counter proposals.
Second, he should insist on institutional transparency within UN rule-making processes. That means advocating for public consultations, oversight mechanisms, and substantive reporting on AI policy development.
Third, he should couple diplomatic engagement with a US strategy that imposes accountability. Export controls must evolve to block technologies that could support authoritarian surveillance or censorship. Congressional letters—like those urging further tightening of semiconductor and AI model controls—provide a template. A UN-focused, national security ambassador could coordinate with those export policies to leverage international influence and ensure regulatory cohesion.
Fourth, he can push internal reforms. At the hearing, Waltz highlighted inefficiency and waste in UN operations, referencing the Secretary-General’s UN80 reform plan calling for a 20 percent staff reduction . He can make that part of a strategic package whereby governance modernization and efficiency become preconditions for UN credibility in AI policymaking.
Finally, he must ensure that American private sector voices are present at the UN. If private-sector innovators are excluded from governance discussions, public bodies easily default to leading-state models that penalize flexibility and risk. The United States should expand invitations to research institutions, tech firms, and non-government experts to participate in UN AI discussions.
The United States Cannot Cede AI Leadership
Waiting carries real risk. China is aiming to institutionalize its model within two years, and the UN has already begun to shape its 2025 AI governance agenda. If the United States remains absent or cursory, American companies and defense agencies may wake up to regulations written from adversarial perspectives, and critics may reframe US resistance as anti-multilateral.
Artificial intelligence is the central geopolitical determinant of the twenty-first century. US policy should reflect that reality. Confirming an ambassador who understands the stakes and can lead an alternative governance agenda at the UN is not advocacy. It is a strategic necessity aligned with American interests.
About the Author: Dr. Azeem Ibrahim OBE
Dr. Azeem Ibrahim OBE is a Research Professor at the Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, Senior Director at the Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy, and author of Authoritarian Century: Omens of a Post-Liberal Order (Hurst, 2023).
Image: CoreDESIGN/shutterstock
