National and regional AI legislation, regulatory moves, and institutional responses

Country AI Laws and Policy Updates

The Evolving Global AI Regulatory and Geopolitical Landscape: Recent Developments and Strategic Implications

As artificial intelligence (AI) rapidly embeds itself into societal, military, and economic infrastructures worldwide, the landscape of regulation, geopolitics, and institutional responses continues to shift at an unprecedented pace. Recent developments underscore a complex mosaic of regional ambitions, strategic resource competitions, and evolving corporate-military dynamics. These movements not only reflect competing visions for AI governance but also reveal a broader contest over technological dominance, sovereignty, and influence in shaping the future of global stability.

Continued Fragmentation and Regional Leadership in AI Regulation

Despite ongoing efforts for normative convergence, the global regulatory environment remains highly fragmented, with regional initiatives emphasizing sovereignty and tailored policies:

European Union: The EU’s AI Act persists as a pioneering effort, employing a risk-based classification system that subjects high-risk AI systems to stringent oversight. Recent parliamentary actions have aimed to block certain AI tools—particularly those raising privacy and cybersecurity concerns—highlighting a cautious stance that prioritizes citizen rights. Critics, however, warn that such stringent regulatory measures could fragment global standards, potentially hindering multinational AI deployment and international collaboration.
India: Building on its "Sutras" framework and the New Delhi AI Declaration, India is positioning itself as a regional leader by fostering trusted, inclusive, and ethically aligned AI policies. Backed by major powers like the US, China, and Russia, India aims to shape international normative standards and foster regional consensus, seeking to influence global AI governance from within the developing world.
United Kingdom: Post-Brexit, the UK adopts a pragmatic approach, integrating AI regulation within its existing online safety frameworks. Its focus on consumer-facing AI systems, such as chatbots, seeks to balance innovation with consumer protection through tailored, flexible regulations aligned with its domestic priorities.
Singapore: Through its National AI Council, Singapore actively promotes responsible AI adoption and regional standards-setting. Its initiatives aim to set benchmarks that could influence neighboring Southeast Asian nations, positioning Singapore as a regional governance hub capable of shaping AI policy harmonization.
Taiwan: The AI Basic Act, passed on December 23, 2025, and enacted in January 2026, exemplifies a regional model emphasizing regulatory clarity, ethical standards, and strategic autonomy. Experts suggest Taiwan’s legislative framework could serve as a regional template for other Asian nations seeking to foster innovation while safeguarding security and democratic integrity.

Geopolitical and Resource Competition: An Intensifying Race

AI development remains at the core of geopolitical rivalries, with access to critical resources and strategic infrastructure fueling tensions:

U.S.-China Rivalry: The competition is fierce and multifaceted. The U.S. emphasizes technological leadership, export controls, and semiconductor supply chain security. Initiatives like 'Tech Corps' aim to export American AI technology and counter China’s expanding influence. Conversely, China deploys AI-enabled systems such as autonomous drones, humanoid robots, and surveillance platforms to assert cyber sovereignty and strengthen social stability. Experts warn that such deployments could fuel an arms race with destabilizing repercussions.
Critical Resources and Supply Chains: The contest over semiconductors, GPUs, and critical minerals—notably lithium, cobalt, and rare earth elements—remains central. Regions like Greenland have gained prominence as key sources. Both the U.S. and China are heavily investing in domestic manufacturing and resource acquisition strategies to reduce dependencies, escalating tensions over resource access and supply chain resilience.
Gulf States’ Strategic AI Investments: Countries such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar are investing hundreds of billions of dollars into AI initiatives, motivated partly by a desire to secure U.S. protection and enhance regional influence. These investments are viewed as strategic insurance policies amid shifting global power dynamics, leveraging AI to assert regional relevance and protect alliances.
APAC’s Assertiveness: The Asia-Pacific region, led by China, Japan, and South Korea, resists external standards, emphasizing sovereignty and regional governance frameworks. According to CDOTrends, the region is done with AI operating solely under external standards, advocating instead for local innovation and regional control over AI development and deployment.

Military, Corporate, and Regulatory Developments: Accelerating Risks and Influence

The intersection of military ambitions, corporate influence, and regulatory strategies is accelerating an AI arms race:

China’s Military AI Strategy: China continues accelerating deployment of autonomous drones, robotic soldiers, and surveillance platforms as part of its military modernization. Recent reports highlight large-scale deployment of autonomous military systems that could alter warfare paradigms and fuel regional tensions. These developments raise arms race concerns and destabilization risks.
U.S. Defense and Industry: The Pentagon has issued a notable ultimatum to AI firms like Anthropic, emphasizing the need to align with military and security standards. On February 24, 2026, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly set a deadline for Anthropic to comply with U.S. military requirements, signaling a tightening of control over commercial AI supply chains. This move exemplifies government efforts to shape AI development through regulatory and contractual leverage.
Corporate Influence and Market Dynamics: Major corporations such as ByteDance are building influence networks across key markets, including the U.S., despite ongoing geopolitical tensions. These activities blur the lines between technological innovation and geopolitical strategy, positioning companies as key international players with strategic leverage.
Liability and Regulation as Strategic Tools: Recent developments reveal a shift toward liability-based regulation in the U.S., which serves as a mechanism for controlling AI deployment and limiting foreign influence. Diplomatic efforts include lobbying against foreign data sovereignty laws, aiming to maintain open data flows and protect American companies’ global access.

In the wake of these strategies, Nvidia’s earnings report (anticipated in late February 2026) has garnered intense investor attention, with market analysts closely watching how semiconductor sales and AI chip demand will influence global supply chains. Recent reports also indicated Anthropic's loosening of safety protocols—a move linked to Pentagon pressure—highlighting the tension between safety, innovation, and military needs.

Societal and Security Risks: Surveillance, Democratic Integrity, and Cyber Threats

AI’s proliferation in public decision-making, surveillance, and cybersecurity continues to raise urgent societal concerns:

Mass Surveillance: Tools like Clearview AI persist in use by state agencies for mass facial recognition, sparking civil liberties debates and calls for stricter oversight. The widespread deployment of AI-driven facial recognition in public spaces threatens privacy rights and potential abuse of authority.
AI in Democratic Processes: Initiatives such as AI-driven parliamentary decision-making in Italy demonstrate potential benefits but also pose risks related to transparency and public trust. Ensuring democratic integrity amid increasing reliance on AI remains a critical challenge, especially as public skepticism grows around algorithmic decision-making.
Cybersecurity and Disinformation: Recent cybersecurity warnings emphasize AI-accelerated threats, including deepfake proliferation, identity fraud, and disinformation campaigns. These threats undermine social cohesion and national security, with experts warning that AI-enabled cyberattacks could disrupt critical infrastructure and destabilize societies.

The AI-GPR Index: A New Tool for Risk Quantification and Diplomacy

A significant recent advancement is the development of the AI-GPR Index, an empirical tool designed to measure and quantify geopolitical risks associated with AI proliferation:

The AI-GPR Index synthesizes data on resource conflicts, technological competition, regulatory divergence, and military deployments to produce risk scores for various regions.
Preliminary findings indicate that East Asia, the Middle East, and Europe exhibit high AI-GPR scores, signaling a greater likelihood of conflicts driven by AI-related tensions.
Experts suggest that the AI-GPR Index can serve as an early-warning mechanism, guiding preventive diplomacy and informing policy responses aimed at conflict mitigation.

Current Status and Future Outlook

The global AI governance landscape remains fragmented, with regional standards diverging sharply. Nonetheless, recent initiatives, notably the India-led New Delhi AI Declaration, suggest hope for normative convergence. The real challenge lies in translating high-level principles into enforceable, cooperative standards that balance innovation, security, and ethics.

Implications moving forward include:

Risks of fragmentation: Divergent standards could hamper international cooperation, slow technological progress, and erode public trust.
Resource geopolitics: Control over semiconductors and critical minerals will continue to shape supply chains and power dynamics, influencing regional stability.
Strategic alliances: Countries are forming increasingly complex alliances—militarily, economically, and technologically—to protect national interests, often leveraging AI as a key strategic asset.
Normative progress: Tools like the AI-GPR Index can enhance diplomatic efforts by quantifying risks, helping prevent conflicts and foster multilateral cooperation.

Conclusion

The coming years are poised to be pivotal in shaping the future of AI governance. While regional ambitions and competition over resources threaten to deepen fragmentation, normative frameworks like the New Delhi AI Declaration and risk assessment tools such as the AI-GPR Index offer pathways toward cooperative, enforceable standards. Balancing innovation, security, and ethics will require international collaboration, transparent governance, and forward-looking policies—a challenge that defines the trajectory of AI’s integration into global stability.

Vigilance, diplomacy, and innovative governance remain essential to ensuring that AI serves humanity’s shared interests rather than becoming a catalyst for conflict or ethical erosion. The global community’s ability to navigate these complexities will determine whether AI becomes a force for progress or peril.

Sources (30)