US shifts AI control policy but strategy remains unchanged

Source: The post US shifts AI control policy but strategy remains unchanged has been created, based on the article “Fathoming America’s plan to manage AI proliferation” published in “The Hindu” on 27th June 2025

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper3 – science and technology – Awareness in IT, Space, Computers, and Robotics.

Context: The United States has revoked its AI Diffusion Framework, originally introduced to control AI technology exports. While this move has been welcomed, the core U.S. approach to restricting AI access—especially for rivals like China—continues in new technological forms, raising fresh global concerns about autonomy and trust.

Problems in the AI Diffusion Framework

1. Treating AI Like Nuclear Weapons: The rescinded framework bundled AI export controls and licenses, treating AI as a strategic weapon. It restricted China and Russia, favoured allies, and limited others. The logic was that controlling computational power would preserve U.S. dominance in AI development.
2. Unintended Effects on Allies: These restrictions made even allies wary of U.S. intentions. Many began exploring strategic alternatives to avoid overdependence, weakening global cooperation in AI.
3. Mischaracterising AI’s Nature: The framework misunderstood AI’s civilian roots and international collaboration. Unlike military tech, AI thrives on global, civilian-driven innovation. Confined development could backfire.
4. Ineffectiveness of Compute Controls: Efforts to block compute access spurred innovations to bypass such limitations. China’s DeepSeek R1 used low compute but achieved high AI performance. This undermined the policy’s core control mechanism.

Shift in Tactics, Not in Strategy

1. New Export Control Measures: Despite ending the framework, the U.S. has tightened export controls. In March 2025, more companies were blacklisted, and enforcement was strengthened. The goal to limit Chinese AI access remains firm.
2. Tech-Based Restrictive Innovations: Proposals include chip-level restrictions and built-in monitoring tools. U.S. lawmakers seek to mandate location tracking for chips, aiming to prevent illegal diversion to adversaries.
3. Continued Strategic Objectives: These steps show the persistence of U.S. intent. Though the framework is gone, the strategy survives through technological enforcement rather than direct trade barriers.

Consequences of Technological Enforcement

1. Privacy and Ownership Risks: Built-in surveillance features raise privacy concerns. Such invasive controls may affect legitimate users more than malicious actors, eroding trust and autonomy.
2. Alienating Allies and Users: Controls may again push partners and users to diversify away from U.S. technologies. Nations will worry about sovereignty and dependency risks.
3. Repetition of Past Mistakes: If these controls replicate the outcomes of the rescinded framework, the U.S. risks repeating strategic errors. The shift in form, not direction, may still lead to reduced global cooperation and innovation.

Future Outlook and Strategic Lessons

1. Incomplete Policy Reversal: The rescission marks a visible change but not a deep policy transformation. Core objectives—especially vis-à-vis China—still define U.S. AI strategy.
2. Risk to U.S. Leadership in AI: Persistent restrictions may isolate the U.S. ecosystem. Rather than safeguarding leadership, it could trigger parallel innovations elsewhere, diluting American influence.
3. Need for Inclusive AI Governance: The experience with the AI Diffusion Framework shows that restrictive strategies can be counterproductive. A more collaborative and balanced global approach is necessary for long-term AI stewardship.

Question for practice:

Evaluate how the rescission of the AI Diffusion Framework reflects a shift in U.S. strategy toward controlling global AI technology access.