Restructuring Power: Identifying the Real Actors Shaping Global AI Governance

The real choice is not “U.S. vs China” or “technological supremacy,” but how the AI revolution will be shaped.

This is the last chapter of a special report. Published in multiple installments. You can read all the chapters here:

Introduction: AI and the Reshaping of Power: Reframing the Core Issues in China’s Global AI Strategy

Chapter 1: From Reactive Stability Maintenance to Intrusive Defense

Chapter 2: Five Dimensions of China’s AI-Driven Global Political Ecosystem

Chapter 3: China’s AI Power Profile: Advantages, Dependencies, and Limits

Chapter 4: Strategic Dilemmas: Managing the Triangular Dynamics between China, the U.S., and the EU

Chapter 5: Restructuring Power: Identifying the Real Actors Shaping Global AI Governance

If you’d like to access the complete report in PDF, you can become a paid subscriber. Otherwise, you’re welcome to reading each chapter as it’s released for free.

Already a paid subscriber? You can download the full report from the Introduction page. For questions, leave us a message on Substack and we’ll respond as soon as possible.

Image/URBE University

The U.S.–China-led artificial intelligence (AI) “competition” is often presented as a sprint over algorithms, chips, and models. In reality, it raises a more fundamental question: Who will control the future power structures shaped by technology?

As examined in previous sections, whether in China’s state-led digital authoritarianism or Silicon Valley’s algorithmic oligarchy, the underlying logic has moved far beyond traditional “market competition.” The power of technology is shifting from tools and efficiency to the capacity for direct intervention in society, culture, cognition, and political order. The greatest challenge is not uncertainty about the technology itself, but the transformation of power structures—and the marginalization of the public interest—that it enables.

5.1. Rethinking and Redefining the Problem

We must first challenge the basic assumptions embedded in today’s dominant AI competition narratives. Across media, policy discourse, and corporate messaging, the U.S.–China AI race is framed as a contest over who will first overcome technical barriers, control high-end computing, and capture the largest market share. This framing narrows public understanding and obscures the real stakes.

The key questions are:

• How do those controlling AI define its purpose for society?

• Can centralized AI deployment reshape political structures and ideologies?

• As states and major tech firms dominate AI governance discourse, do the public still have meaningful rights to question, resist, and oversee?

• When we speak of “technological security,” whose security is being protected—the state’s, capital’s, or that of ordinary citizens?

Only by reframing the problem can we understand what is truly at stake. This is not merely a race for technological supremacy, but a contest over how technology will shape the future of social governance. If we remain trapped in outdated paradigms of industrial policy, export controls, and market firewalls, we risk missing the deeper structural transformation already underway.

5.2. Misaligned Measures: Structural Blind Spots in AI Policy

Current national AI governance approaches often appear to address technological risks, but frequently suffer from structural misalignment—offering tactical responses without clearly defining the real problem.

Export controls illustrate this gap. U.S. chip bans and technology restrictions have hampered China’s ability to deploy advanced AI models at scale. Yet if China’s strategic aim is not outright technological dominance but the rapid global deployment of “good enough” AI to expand influence, such measures may do little to disrupt its broader objectives.

Similarly, Silicon Valley’s resistance to regulation, data sovereignty, and content moderation is framed as protecting “innovation freedom,” but in practice it helps consolidate global algorithmic power. The EU’s compliance-driven model, while well-intentioned, struggles for impact due to weak enforcement capacity and limited geopolitical leverage.

These approaches address surface-level competition while avoiding the deeper issue of power restructuring. If public discourse continues to frame AI competition as a matter of “who is more advanced” rather than “who defines the future of social structures,” policy responses will fail—or worse, replicate a “non-Chinese version” of the China model, where concentrated corporate power in democracies mirrors the monopolistic and authoritarian traits of Beijing’s system.

5.3. Pathways for Public-Centered AI Governance

Global technological restructuring has transformed AI governance from product oversight into a deeper political question: how power is distributed and how social structures are reshaped. Restraining the expansionary behavior of states, corporations, and transnational platforms requires a governance framework that is institutionally resilient, ethically grounded, and globally interoperable.

1) Democratizing and Diversifying Value Alignment

• Shift AI “alignment” from closed corporate processes to open, collaborative systems.

• Establish public participation mechanisms—citizen juries, cross-cultural value panels, and feedback portals.

• Require AI models used in public services to disclose alignment processes, training data sources, and key performance indicators to enable external evaluation of biases.

2) Strengthening Platform Responsibility and Transparency

• Mandate disclosure of training data sources, filtering mechanisms, moderation standards, and user feedback processes.

• Require external audit interfaces for independent review of model behavior, training processes, and risk assessments.

• Establish legal liability for systemic distortion, bias, or misuse in AI-generated content.

3) Combining “Tool Regulation” with “Power Auditing”

• Introduce audits assessing AI’s impact on power centralization, democratic space, and inequality.

• Require social impact and ethical reviews for all large-scale AI models in governance, judicial, or public opinion functions.

• Create independent oversight bodies to monitor long-term power dependencies in AI deployment.

4) Building Ethical Sandboxes and Expanding International Coordination

• Establish “ethical sandboxes” to test new AI within controlled settings involving civil society, think tanks, and communities.

• Require cross-border AI deployments to pass international ethical certification—including risk disclosure, data protection, and transparency.

• Promote multilateral platforms for AI governance dialogue with mutual recognition of standards.

5) Ethical Oversight of AI Export and Transfer

• Develop classified export lists for sensitive AI models, APIs, chips, and integrated systems.

• Require end-use declarations and human rights risk assessments before export, with post-deployment tracking.

• Mandate government review for all cross-border transfers involving algorithms, data control, or cloud infrastructure, with public transparency reports.

Conclusion

The global AI race is not simply a contest of national strength—it is a political experiment in redefining the public’s future. As both states and corporations move toward greater power centralization, the real choice is not “U.S. versus China” or “technological supremacy,” but whether the AI revolution will be shaped around principles that safeguard societal welfare and democratic governance.

Above all, we must recognize the core reality: this competition is not about who leads in AI, but who will redefine power structures, control access to information, and set the criteria for truth.

References:

1. Al Jazeera. China’s Global Censorship and Surveillance Infrastructure. 2 May 2024, www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/2/china-trying-to-develop-world-built-on-censorship-and-surveillance.

2. Biometric Update. “China’s AI Biometrics and Persistent Threats.” 2024, www.biometricupdate.com.

3. Brookings Institution. “How AI Enables Public Surveillance.” 2023, www.brookings.edu.

4. Center for a New American Security. The Dangers of the Global Spread of China’s Digital Authoritarianism. 2024, www.cnas.org/publications/congressional-testimony/the-dangers-of-the-global-spread-of-chinas-digital-authoritarianism.

5. China Media Project. “China’s AI Content Dragnet.” 2024, www.china-media-project.org.

6. Freedom House. Freedom on the Net: China Report. 2023, www.freedomhouse.org/country/china/freedom-net/2023.

7. Freedom House. China: Transnational Repression. 2024, www.freedomhouse.org/report/transnational-repression/china.

8. Human Rights Watch. They Don’t Understand the Fear We Have. 30 June 2021, www.hrw.org/report/2021/06/30/they-dont-understand-fear-we-have.

9. International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. China Targets: Inside China’s Transnational Repression. 2024, www.icij.org/investigations/china-targets.

10. International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. How Beijing Reaches Beyond Its Borders. 2024, www.icij.org/investigations/china-targets/china-transnational-repression-dissent-around-world.

11. Lowy Institute. “AI and the Governance Vacuum.” 2023, www.lowyinstitute.org.

12. MIT Economics. AI Trade and Global Tech Policy: Implications for China. 2024, economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/aitrade_NBER_SI.pdf.

13. Peace Research Institute Oslo. Surveillance Tech Transfer and the Digital Silk Road. 2023, www.prio.org/publications/14410.

14. RAND Corporation. China’s Drive Toward Self-Reliance in AI Chips and Large Language Models. 2024, www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA4012-1.html.

15. SinoSage. China’s Transnational Repression: Commentary. 2024, sinosage.substack.com/p/commentary-chinas-transnational-repression.

16. SinoSage. Vanishing Archives, Faltering Algorithms. 2025. https://sinosage.substack.com/p/vanishing-archives-faltering-algorithms.

17. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). China’s Academic and Technological Censorship Abroad. 2023, www.thefire.org.

18. The Guardian. “Embodied AI Reshaping Life in China.” 2024, www.theguardian.com.

19. The Guardian. “A Quarter of Countries Impacted by China’s Transnational Repression.” 12 Feb. 2025, www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/feb/12/quarter-countries-exiled-dissidents-china-governments-transnational-repression.

20. VOA News. “DeepSeek AI and China’s Surveillance.” 2024, www.voanews.com.

21. Watrix AI. Gait Recognition 3.0 Whitepaper. 2024, www.watrix.ai/whitepapers/gait-recognition-3.0.

22. Whitecase. AI Watch: Global Regulatory Tracker - United States. 2024, www.whitecase.com/insight-our-thinking/ai-watch-global-regulatory-tracker-united-states.

23. OpenAI. Disrupting Malicious Uses of AI: Threat Intelligence Report. June 2025, cdn.openai.com/threat-intelligence-reports/5f73af09-a3a3-4a55-992e-069237681620/disrupting-malicious-uses-of-ai-june-2025.pdf.

24. The Nation. “Alex Karp, Palantir, and the Rise of AI Surveillance.” 2024, www.thenation.com/article/culture/alex-karp-palantir-tech-republic.

25. TechTarget. “US Policy Moves Reflect Big Tech Issues with State AI Laws.” 2025, www.techtarget.com/searchcio/news/366624575/US-policy-moves-reflect-big-tech-issues-with-state-AI-laws.

26. Politico. “How Big Tech Is Pitting Washington Against California Over AI Regulation.” 12 May 2025, www.politico.com/news/2025/05/12/how-big-tech-is-pitting-washington-against-california-00336484.

27. The Economist. “China Has Top-Flight AI Models, but It Is Struggling to Run Them.” 30 July 2025, www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2025/07/30/china-has-top-flight-ai-models-but-it-is-struggling-to-run-them.

28. Journal of Democracy. “How Autocrats Weaponize AI and How to Fight Back.” 2024, www.journalofdemocracy.org/online-exclusive/how-autocrats-weaponize-ai-and-how-to-fight-back.

29. Fortune. “Yoshua Bengio: AI Models Could Be Dangerous for Deception and Cheating.” 3 June 2025, fortune.com/2025/06/03/yoshua-bengio-ai-models-dangerous-behaviors-deception-cheating-lying.

30. Cato Institute. AI Privacy Rules Could Hurt Small Businesses Most. 2024, www.cato.org/commentary/ai-privacy-rules-meant-big-tech-could-hurt-small-businesses-most.

31. Whitecase. Winning the Race: America’s AI Action Plan. 2025, www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2025/07/winning-the-race-americas-ai-action-plan-key-pillars-policy-actions-and-future-implications.

32. “AI Governance and Policy: Implications and Challenges.” F1000Research, vol. 14, 2024, https://f1000research.com/articles/14-251.

33. “China’s Strategic Approach to AI Regulation.” Journal of Contemporary Emerging Politics, 2024, https://jcep.ut.ac.ir/article_99061_en.html.

34. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Choking China’s Access to Future AI. 2024, www.csis.org/analysis/choking-chinas-access-future-ai.

35. The White House. White House Unveils America’s AI Action Plan. 2025, www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/07/white-house-unveils-americas-ai-action-plan.

36. European Commission. AI Regulation in the EU. 2025, digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai.

37. The Good Lobby. How Big Tech Is Influencing AI Regulation: The Public Deserves to Know. 2025, www.thegoodlobby.eu.

38. Corporate Europe Observatory. Setting Rules to Their Own Game: How Big Tech Is Shaping AI Standards. Jan. 2025, corporateeurope.org/en/2025/01/setting-rules-their-own-game-how-big-tech-shaping-ai-standards.

39. Time. “TIME100 Impact Awards: Yann LeCun on the Power and Limits of AI.” 2025, time.com/6691705/time100-impact-awards-yann-lecun.

If you value our work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber or buying us a coffee. Your support sustains independent, in-depth analysis and helps us build toward future offerings—like exclusive reports and interactive Q&As. Every contribution keeps this project thoughtful, ad-free, and accountable to you.

Thank you!