At the India AI Impact Summit 2026 in New Delhi, Michael Kratsios — the White House technology adviser and head of the United States delegation — made clear that the U.S. opposes centralised global governance of artificial intelligence. Kratsios said that, consistent with the current U.S. administration’s stance, the country “totally rejects global governance of AI,” arguing that subjecting AI to international bureaucracies and central control would hinder innovation and prosperity. He delivered these remarks as world leaders were meeting to discuss shared visions for handling the fast-developing technology.
Kratsios stressed that the U.S. sees AI adoption as a driving force for “human flourishing and unprecedented prosperity,” and criticised approaches focused mainly on risk and regulation. According to him, emphasising safety and speculative dangers too strongly could inhibit competition, entrench established players, and isolate developing countries from fully participating in the global AI economy. In that view, centralised international oversight would reduce flexibility and slow progress, rather than protecting societies from AI risks.
Instead of global governance, Kratsios argued for national sovereignty in AI development and regulation, urging countries to build their own capabilities and adopt foreign technologies in ways that benefit their citizens and respect their data policies. The U.S. position at the summit reflects a broader emphasis on sovereign AI strategies and partnerships rather than supranational regulatory frameworks, contrasting with voices at the event — such as the United Nations — calling for coordinated international standards and panels to make human control of AI a technical reality.
His remarks highlighted a significant divide in how different nations approach the future of AI governance. While the U.S. prioritises competition and national autonomy, other leaders — including European counterparts like French President Emmanuel Macron and UN officials — advocate for shared rules and protections to ensure safety, equity, and ethical use. This divergence underlines ongoing tensions between innovation-friendly policies and efforts to develop global norms that can address AI’s societal impacts.
