Lead Global Security Analyst, The Washington Post; author of "Chaos Under Heaven: Trump, Xi & the Battle for the 21st Century."
Case
Jon Ossoff urges inspections, legislation and an AI treaty; Donald Trump says existing federal powers are sufficient. Their opposing positions raise a concrete question: should Washington add safeguards for frontier AI?
Role at the time: Lead Global Security Analyst, The Washington Post
Statement summary
Josh Rogin argued that China's own extensive AI regulation disproves the claim that U.S. regulation would let China win the AI race, calling that argument self-serving, while distinguishing Chinese AI regulation (aimed at protecting the Communist Party) from the privacy- and democracy-focused regulation he says the U.S. needs.
“This idea that if we regulate AI, that China will win, is not true. And the way that we know that is because China regulates AI. They have the most regulation of their AI than any country in the world... So the tech bros in the U.S. that say if we regulate AI, the Chinese going to win - that's a self-serving argument. That isn't true.”
The case's fixed reference point is the proposition that Washington should impose stronger safeguards on frontier AI. Rogin directly rebuts the competitiveness objection to that proposition -- the same 'China will win' argument Nancy Mace used to reject safeguards in this case -- and argues U.S. regulation is compatible with staying ahead of China, supporting the case proposition.
Statement dates: September 18, 2026
Statement dates: September 18, 2026
