Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Can the US defense industry harness AI power while mitigating risks?
US President Joe Biden may have just uttered his last official word on artificial intelligence. Just days before the 2024 presidential election — a race that will put either Vice President Kamala Harris or former President Donald Trump in the Oval Office — Biden outlined his case for military-industrial cooperation on AI to get the most out of the emerging technology.
The new National Security Memorandum outlines new ways to accelerate the safe, secure, and responsible use of AI in the US defense agencies and intelligence community.
The NSM, released Oct. 24, is a follow-up to Biden’s October 2023 executive order on AI. It directs federal agencies to “act decisively” in adopting AI while safeguarding against potential risks. The memo names the AI Safety Institute, housed within the Commerce Department, as the primary point of contact between the government and the private sector's AI developers. It requires new testing protocols, creates an AI National Security Coordination Group to coordinate policies across agencies, and encourages cooperation with international organizations like the UN and G7.
“Many countries — especially military powers — have accepted that AI will play a role in military affairs and national security,” said Owen Daniels, associate director of analysis at Georgetown University's Center for Security and Emerging Technology. “That AI will be used in future operations is both inevitable and generally accepted today, which wasn't the case even a few years ago.” Daniels says AI is already being used for command and control, intelligence analysis, and targeting.
The boring uses of AI might be the most important. Experts told GZERO that the immediate applications of military adoption of AI are much less dramatic than early reports of AI-enabled weaponry that can identify, seek out, and destroy a target without human intervention.
“When AI started heating up in the last few years, a lot of people in the military thought ‘killer robots, lethal autonomous weapon systems — this is the next thing,’” said Samuel Bresnick, a research fellow at CSET and colleague of Daniels’. “But what’s becoming clear is that AI is really well-suited to the ‘tail end’ of military operations — things like logistics and bureaucracy — rather than the ‘head end’ of targeting and weapons systems.” Bresnick said that even if AI can help military personnel do mundane tasks like filling out expense reports, tracking supplies, and managing logistics, in aggregate that could restore meaningful man-hours that can boost the military.
This focus on improving efficiency is reflected in the memo's emphasis on generative AI models, which excel at processing large amounts of data and paperwork, according to Dean Ball, research fellow at the libertarian Mercatus Center at George Mason University. “Our national security apparatus collects an enormous amount of data from all over the world each day,” he said. “While prior machine learning systems had been used for narrow purposes — say, to identify a specific kind of thing in a specific kind of satellite image — frontier systems can do these tasks with the broader ‘world knowledge’” that AI companies like OpenAI have collected from lots of different domains that, combined with proprietary data, could aid defense and intelligence analysts.
Beyond number-crunching and complex data analysis, the technology could also enable sophisticated modeling capabilities. “If you’re undergoing a massive nuclear buildup and can't test new weapons, one way to get around that is to use powerful AI systems to model nuclear weapons designs or explosions,” Bresnick said. Similar modeling applications could extend to missile defense systems and other complex military technologies.
While Ball found the NSM rather comprehensive, he worries about the broader Biden administration effort to rein in AI as something that could “slow down adoption of AI by all sorts of businesses” and reduce American competitiveness.
While the focus of the memo is national security, its scope extends to other areas meant to boost the private AI industry too. The memorandum specifically calls for agencies to reform hiring practices such as visa requirements to import AI talent and improve acquisition procedures to better take advantage of private sector-made AI. It also emphasizes the importance of investing in AI research from small businesses, civil society groups, and academic institutions — not just Big Tech firms.
Calls for the ethical use of AI. US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan emphasized the urgency of the memo in recent remarks at the National Defense University in Washington, DC — noting that AI capabilities are advancing at “breathtaking” speed with implications for everything from nuclear physics and rocketry to stealth technology. Sullivan emphasized developing and deploying AI responsibly when it comes to AI in a national security context. “I emphasize that word, ‘responsibly,’” he said. “Developing and deploying AI safely, securely, and, yes, responsibly, is the backbone of our strategy. That includes ensuring that AI systems are free of bias and discrimination.” Sullivan said the US needs fair competition and open markets, and to respect privacy, human rights, civil rights, and civil liberties as it pushes forward on AI.
He said that acting responsibly will also allow the US to move quickly. “Uncertainty breeds caution,” Sullivan wrote. “When we lack confidence about safety and reliability, we’re slower to experiment, to adopt, to use new capabilities — and we just can’t afford to do that in today’s strategic landscape.”
As the United States seeks to gain a strategic edge over China and other military rivals using artificial intelligence, it’s leaving no stone unturned. The US Treasury Department even finalized new rules restricting US investment into Chinese artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and chip technology this week.
America’s top national security officials want to ensure they’re building AI capacity, gaining an advantage over China, and deploying this technology responsibly — lest they risk losing popular support for an AI-powered military. That’s a strategic misstep they’re not willing to make.
Alaska Governor Dunleavy warns of "heightened" Russian and Chinese activities in the Arctic
On GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, Governor Mike Dunleavy underscores Alaska's strategic significance in US national security, describing it as "the real operational fort for North America." The state's unique geographical location, further west than Hawaii and, at one point, just two and a half miles from Russia, places it on the front lines of potential conflicts with adversaries like Russia, China, and North Korea. Dunleavy admits that Alaska regularly faces military provocations, including Russian bombers that "overfly our state... maybe three times a month" and Chinese warships navigating through the Bering Strait.
The Governor warns that Alaska's proximity to global hotspots like Asia and the Arctic makes it a critical player in any future military conflicts. "If there is conflict [in Asia], Alaska is going to be unfortunately part of that," he says, noting that the state's military bases would likely become key points for deploying US troops and equipment. The governor also highlights the state's role in missile defense, mentioning that Alaska's interceptors are crucial in dealing with "Korean missile threats," emphasizing the state's readiness to respond to growing regional tensions.
Watch full episode: As the Arctic melts, Alaska's importance grows
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don''t miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).
Are we on the brink of a new cold war?
“We are back in a period of superpower competition that will probably go on for decades. And that, if we're lucky, remains a cold war.” David Sanger, a Pulitzer prize-winning national security correspondent for The New York Times, joins Ian Bremmer on a new episode of GZERO World to offer a clear-eyed take on America’s adversaries. He’s out with a new book called "New Cold Wars: China's Rise, Russia's Invasion, and America's Struggle to Defend the West." The takeaway: we’re entering a new and increasingly unstable era of geopolitics where the US, China, and Russia will be vying for power and influence like never before. China's rise as a world leader and economic powerhouse, along with Russia's nuclear saber-rattling and increasing military cooperation, poses an unprecedented challenge to US dominance.
But unlike the Cold War that dominated the 20th century, where the US and the Soviet Union could operate essentially independently from each other, the world today is far more connected. "It's a cold war that bears almost no resemblance to the one that you and I are old enough to remember, because in that Cold War, we had a single competitor, and we weren't dependent on them, nor they on us for very much."
Sanger also talks about America’s missed opportunities and misjudgments in dealing with Russia and China. There were early hopes of engagement with Russia under Yeltsin's presidency, which quickly eroded when Putin came to power. Similarly, there was a belief that integrating China into the global economy would lead to political reform. However, this bet did not play out as expected, with the Communist Party using digital forces for explicit repression techniques. "It became pretty evident, pretty clearly that the Communist party had learned how to take these same digital forces and use them for the most explicitly designed repression techniques we have ever seen.”
But one area where both Russia and China have a shared interest? Pitting Americans against each other. “They have every incentive, both Russia and China, to be subtle actors in the background of this coming presidential election,” Sanger tells Bremmer. “And that's one area where if they are not cooperating, it would pay them off considerably to coordinate.”
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
- China and Russia veto US cease-fire resolution for Gaza ›
- Blinken meets with Xi, but no breakthroughs ›
- Blinken's big message in Beijing: Cut out Russia - GZERO Media ›
- The biggest threats to US national security, foreign and domestic ›
- The Graphic Truth: US-China: Cold War or Cold Cash? ›
- The US-China Cold War fallacy? ›
Podcast: What's the US role in the Israel-Hamas war? Views from Sen. Chris Murphy & Rep. Mike Waltz
Listen: Two weeks into Israel's bloody war with Hamas, the death toll continues to mount, and amidst the rubble of bombed-out buildings, one thing seems clear: things are far from over. On the GZERO World podcast, Ian Bremmer asks what role the US government should play in the conflict and whether that role is as clear-cut today as it was after the attack on October 7. President Biden made a politically and personally dangerous trip to Israel this week, showing solidarity for America’s closest ally in the Middle East. But the administration must walk a fine line between supporting Israel’s right to defend itself, and preventing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza from spiraling out of control.
To get the view from both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill, Ian speaks first with Senator Chris Murphy, the Connecticut Democrat who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and then with Republican Representative Mike Waltz of Florida, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It's a particularly timely moment to be on Capitol Hill, as House Republicans remain paralyzed over their inability to pick a Speaker. Senator Murphy and Congressman Waltz both comment on what toll that dysfunction is taking on US national security.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.- The Israel-Hamas war: Where we are, two weeks in ›
- Israel-Hamas War: The race to avert escalation in the Middle East ›
- Will Israel's war with Hamas spread north to Lebanon? ›
- Podcast: The war between Israel and Hamas and its unfathomable human toll ›
- Israel-Hamas war: Biden's second foreign policy crisis - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: The path to a two-state solution for Israel & Palestine: Former PM Ehud Barak's perspective - GZERO Media ›
- Israel-Hamas war set to expand & directly involve US - GZERO Media ›
Trump indicted on federal charges
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here. Another Quick Take. Too much news this week to keep me down. My goodness.
Seven indictments going to be coming down on Tuesday, federal indictments, against former President Trump. Unprecedented development in US history. We see so many of those in American democracy these days. No American president has ever been federally indicted before. I'd like to say no one will ever be federal indicted again, but of course that is looking increasingly unlikely given the state and trajectory of the US political system.
Now, of course, the right thing to do here would be to wait until the indictments come down to opine on them, wait until evidence is presented, and the jury rules to determine to what extent this is a case that is appropriate on its merits. It's kind of like OJ, right? I mean, everyone was on tenterhooks until the verdict came down, and then you had the real response. No, no, no, the real response right now has absolutely nothing to do with the facts of the case and has to do with your political alignment. Are you on Team Trump or are you on Team I Can't Stand Trump? Depending on that, that determines your response to the case.
We've seen that already in the US political system. Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy comes out immediately and very strongly with Trump sort of language, "This is a witch hunt." "This is a politicization of the Department of Justice, a sitting president going after a former president." "Can't take this seriously." I mean, if you're listening to McCarthy or if you're listening to most of the competing candidates for the Republican presidency, not all, but certainly most against Trump, your view would be that this case is illegitimate. It's being brought against Trump by Biden to destroy him, to destroy his candidacy. It is politically motivated. That you should not have any belief or support for the independent DOJ and cases that are being brought forward. That rule of law in the United States is being subverted by this very case. That is the perspective.
On the other side is the view that you can't have rule of law if one man, any man, particularly the former president or the sitting President of the United States stands above it and that rule of law doesn't apply. The breadth of the cases against former President Trump is, of course, staggering both with indictments already being brought down. Of course, these are the first federal indictments. They're not the first indictments. Other cases are proceeding apace in Georgia as well as federal case on insurrection. There was recently a civil case that Trump lost and $5 million he has to pay for sexual assault of E. Jean Carroll.
I mean, this is far too much legal sturm und drang for any individual in the American political system. If these are legitimate crimes, in a system that has rule of law, you need to be prosecuting them. Then of course, there are people in the United States for whom Trump is guilty irrespective of what the facts bring, so they're prepared to try him and find him guilty in the court of the media and public opinion, irrespective of what the grand jury says, irrespective of what the evidence is found to be in the case.
I mean that by itself, the reality of this case shows a level of the US political system being broken. That's the biggest takeaway. The biggest takeaway, of course, is that impeachment no longer functions as a check on the executive. It has become inextricably politicized. It can only be used in a partisan way, and therefore it no longer holds legitimacy. That started off in the Clinton days, and it is only expanded as we've seen with former President Trump.
That is now becoming increasingly true with the Attorney General and with the special prosecutor. Irrespective of what you think about the case, the fact that it is not being tried on its merits in the court of public opinion, the fact that the media and the political leaders on the Democratic and Republican party and the American people have made up their minds about the nature of this case, that the majority of them, before any evidence is heard, shows that the US democracy is not what it once was. That's the biggest takeaway. That's the most disturbing takeaway.
Now, to look at what's going to happen going forward. This clearly isn't as serious as the insurrection case that might be brought, but it's far more serious than the case involving Stormy Daniels and the illegal use of funds to pay her off. Also, less politicized in the sense that Alvin Bragg in New York City is certainly seen to be making more of a career name for himself in going after Trump. That's not the case with the special counsel there. Indeed, the politics run in the other direction. Unless the Special counsel and the Attorney General truly believed they had a rock solid case against Trump, it is hard to imagine that they would be proceeding with it.
Having said that, Trump himself runs a grievance-based campaign. He's incredibly effective at it. He's a more effective campaigner than any political leader I've ever seen. Irrespective of how he governs, he loves campaigning. He now has a much more solid team around him for the campaign because they think he's going to win than they did in 2016 where he had the D team that all thought he was going to lose. His ability to fundraise off this. Of course, those letters were all basically out as soon as he got the phone call that the indictments were coming down.
I hate to say this, but I actually believe that these indictments make it more likely that Trump is going to get the Republican nomination. I particularly believe that because it's very unlikely that this case is going to get resolved by a grand jury before the nomination process for the GOP is complete. In fact, it's probably unlikely to get resolved before the actual election. The weird thing, of course, is if it got resolved and he was found guilty and was even in jail, again very unlikely, but as a felon, he'd still probably be able to run from jail as president, but he wouldn't be able to vote in Florida, which is all just shows how incredibly farcical the US political system has become.
The more important issue here, I guess from a positive perspective, is that there are a significant minority of Republican voters that believe that Trump should not be president if he's found guilty of a serious crime, if he's convicted of a serious crime. My point is that that is very unlikely to happen before the election process, and certainly before the nomination process. Yes, Asa Hutchinson, yes, Chris Christie are going after Trump directly, but most of the candidates, and certainly the most popular candidates are not going to, and they're going to support Trump if he gets that nomination. That's an advantage to him in the same way that McCarthy, Speaker of the House, is absolutely going to continue to do that.
What do I think? What think is we're going to cover this as a country every day. It's going to dominate headlines. It's going to help Trump, it's going to weaken US democracy. For allies around the world, this is a hit to confidence in the United States as a trusted long-term ally as a political system that they want to align with. For adversaries of the United States, it is useful as a proof point that the American political system is no better than their own. That there is a moral relativism and a hypocrisy when we talk about politics and values. That there is no right or wrong on the global stage, and to the extent that there is, that the Americans and American political elites are on the wrong side of that.
It's unfortunate. It's not what we want to see. Every American who grew up believing in liberty and democracy and rule of law has seen faith in those values shaken over the past couple of decades and continued with the news of the last 24 hours. I'm sorry to have to report on that. I still believe in the resilience, ultimately, of the US political system. But it is that very resilience that allows so many political leaders to say, "Not today. I don't have to deal with this because everything is just fine. The longer everything is seen to be just fine, the greater the erosion becomes." At some point you get a crisis. We are heading in that direction. I'm not looking forward to seeing it.
That's it for me. I'll talk to you all real soon.
War in Europe is top priority at Munich Security Conference
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
Will Russia-Ukraine dominate the conversations at this year's Munich Security Conference?
I think absolutely it will be not just the topic of conversation that's keeping everyone anxious, but it will be the top priority. Again, it's in Europe. 50 members of a US congressional delegation showing up. That's a record like by a large number. I'm kind of shocked that many people will be there. The Russians of course won't be there, but the top priority is a war in Europe. Everyone's deeply worried about it as they should. It's the largest risk out there by a factor of magnitude. Balloon gate is not close.
Is Israel's democracy really under threat?
I would say it's eroding. The fact that Netanyahu, the prime minister, is trying to undermine the balance and separation of powers with the judiciary and have it more directly accountable, responsible to the executive would be a weakening of the Israeli political system. That would make it more of a flawed democracy, more of a hybrid democracy. Then of course, there's the broader question of outside of Israel, the occupied territories and how they are governed and how the Palestinians there do not have, do not enjoy actual citizenship, and are treated as second class citizens clearly has an impact on Israeli democracy as well. Put those two things together, flawed democracy is increasingly what we're talking about.
Finally, should I care about balloongate?
Well, I mean now that we're calling it balloongate, I guess you have to care about it. I mean, how many of these things are actually balloons? I don't know. We don't know what they are yet. What we do know really is that after the Americans shot down the Chinese balloon, NORAD really opened the aperture for what they are tracking, what they're paying attention to, and what the Americans might be willing to shoot down. So the fact that you have a bunch of additional stuff being shot down does not imply a greater threat. It implies a reduced threat tolerance. And the potential that that's going to antagonize third parties is going up. Very little reason to believe so far that the other objects are coming from China or are part of that surveillance program.
The biggest threats to US national security, foreign and domestic
Less than a month ago, the Biden administration finally dropped its long-anticipated National Security Strategy. The No. 1 external enemy is not Russia but rather China. It also emphasizes the homegrown threat of Americans willing to engage in political violence if their candidate loses at the ballot box.
On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer speaks to New York Times national security correspondent David Sanger about the key national security threats facing the United States right now.
Sanger believes the biggest threat to America's national security right now is an "insider threat" to the stability of the election system coming from Americans willing to engage in political violence. Taiwan's status as a semiconductor superpower may be staving off a Chinese invasion.
On Russia, Sanger believes that Ukraine and the world face the paradox that the better Ukraine gets at resisting Russia, the more likely Putin might launch a tactical nuke. And if he does, he might just get away with it.
This interview was featured in a GZERO World episode: US threat levels from foreign and domestic enemies
- What threatens the USA? ›
- Podcast: America at risk: assessing Russia, China, and domestic threats ›
- US threat levels from foreign and domestic enemies ›
- Standing up for democracy and the truth: Former US national security official Fiona Hill ›
- Putin needs Xi to win the war in Ukraine - GZERO Media ›
- The next era of global superpower competition: a conversation with the New York Times' David Sanger - GZERO Media ›
Ian Bremmer: Risk of nuclear crisis in 2022 is too high
The White House believes that there is a 20% chance of another Cuban Missile Crisis "in the next eight weeks" with Russia, Ian Bremmer said at an event at the Asia Society in New York on Monday. While Bremmer doesn't see as high a chance that Putin would risk using nuclear weapons, he added, "Either way, those numbers are way too freaking high." The even bigger risk, he points out, is that not enough is being done to manage the unprecedented danger from Russia in the medium term.
The Russian economy is being cut off from the West the same way as Iran has been, with a 40% or 50% contraction expected over the next five years. A G20 economy has never been decoupled from the West before. If Russia becomes a rogue state like Iran with ballistic missile attacks, drone strikes, espionage, proxy wars, radicalism, and terrorist violence - but with 6,000 nuclear warheads in their arsenal - "that really does not bode well for the next five, 10 years or for our kids. It really doesn't," Bremmer told former Australian PM and Asia Society President and CEO Kevin Rudd at the Asia Society's headquarters in New York.