It is obvious that Bernie is under the spell of China. Meanwhile, America must not allow each individual state to "negotiate" terms regarding AI. Of course Bernie, being under the Chinese spell says, "No worries".

The reason is straightforward. A 50-state regulatory patchwork in a critical national-security technology, in a moment when American AI leadership is the only meaningful technological gap remaining over the People’s Republic of China, must be protected due to the NGO lobbies whose lineage traces back to Communist China.

Bernie Understands This Very Well and Knows China Does Not Want A United Front Regarding AI Technology in America.

quote:
President Trump’s December 11, 2025 Executive Order, “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” and Senator Marsha Blackburn’s December 2025 TRUMP AMERICA AI Act both move in the right direction. They are no longer optional. The reason is straightforward. A 50-state regulatory patchwork in a critical national-security technology, in a moment when American AI leadership is the only meaningful technological gap remaining over the People’s Republic of China, is not federalism. It is the legal equivalent of letting California’s coastal commission decide the rules for the Manhattan Project. Federalism has its place. Strategic technology competition is not it. The question Congress should be asking is not whether federal preemption violates conservative principles. The question is whether the United States can afford to let 38 statehouses, lobbied by NGOs whose intellectual lineage runs through Beijing-aligned framings, set the operating constraints for the technology on which the next century of American power depends. The answer is no.

I now turn to the second half of the case, which I have come to think of as the Manhattan Project test. The historical analogy is exact. In 1945, the United States did not pause the Manhattan Project to negotiate symmetric arms control with imperial Japan. It built the bomb. Then it negotiated. The post-war nuclear arms control regime, which Sanders and Tegmark both invoke as the model for AI cooperation with China, was made possible only because the United States had first achieved unambiguous technological superiority. The Soviet Union came to the table in 1963 because the United States held the cards, not because the United States had unilaterally laid them down. Every senior figure now arguing for an American AI moratorium, from Sanders to Tegmark to the 230 organizations behind the December 2025 Food and Water Watch letter, owes the American public a single direct answer to a single direct question. The question is this: do you support a unilateral American pause if the People’s Republic of China does not pause, yes or no. Not “we hope for international cooperation.” Not “we are working toward multilateral frameworks.” Not “we believe Beijing will eventually see reason.” Yes or no.

Beijing's Trojan Horse: The NGO Network Quietly Strangling American Data Centers & AI

This post was edited on 5/2/26 at 10:48 am