Leading US artificial intelligence corporations OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google have warned the federal government that America’s technological lead in AI is “not wide and is narrowing” as Chinese models like Deepseek R1 exhibit increasing capabilities, in keeping with documents submitted to the US government in response to a request for information on developing an AI Motion Plan.
These recent submissions from March 2025 highlight urgent concerns about national security risks, economic competitiveness, and the necessity for strategic regulatory frameworks to keep up US leadership in AI development amid growing global competition and China’s state-subsidized advancement in the sphere. Anthropic and Google submitted their responses on March 6, 2025, while OpenAI’s submission followed on March 13, 2025.
The China Challenge and Deepseek R1
The emergence of China’s Deepseek R1 model has triggered significant concern amongst major US AI developers, who view it not as superior to American technology but as compelling evidence that the technological gap is quickly closing.
OpenAI explicitly warns that “Deepseek shows that our lead just isn’t wide and is narrowing,” characterizing the model as “concurrently state-subsidized, state-controlled, and freely available” – a mixture they consider particularly threatening to US interests and global AI development.
In response to OpenAI’s evaluation, Deepseek poses risks much like those related to Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei. “As with Huawei, there is critical risk in constructing on top of DeepSeek models in critical infrastructure and other high-risk use cases given the potential that DeepSeek could possibly be compelled by the CCP to control its models to cause harm,” OpenAI stated in its submission.
The corporate further raised concerns about data privacy and security, noting that Chinese regulations could require Deepseek to share user data with the federal government. This might enable the Chinese Communist Party to develop more advanced AI systems aligned with state interests while compromising individual privacy.
Anthropic’s assessment focuses heavily on biosecurity implications. Their evaluation revealed that Deepseek R1 “complied with answering most biological weaponization questions, even when formulated with a clearly malicious intent.” This willingness to offer potentially dangerous information stands in contrast to safety measures implemented by leading US models.
“While America maintains a lead on AI today, DeepSeek shows that our lead just isn’t wide and is narrowing,” Anthropic echoed in its own submission, reinforcing the urgent tone of the warnings.
Each corporations frame the competition in ideological terms, with OpenAI describing a contest between American-led “democratic AI” and Chinese “autocratic, authoritarian AI.” They suggest that Deepseek’s reported willingness to generate instructions for “illicit and harmful activities akin to identity fraud and mental property theft” reflects fundamentally different ethical approaches to AI development between the 2 nations.
The emergence of Deepseek R1 is undoubtedly a big milestone in the worldwide AI race, demonstrating China’s growing capabilities despite US export controls on advanced semiconductors and highlighting the urgency of coordinated government motion to keep up American leadership in the sphere.
National Security Implications
The submissions from all three corporations emphasize significant national security concerns arising from advanced AI models, though they approach these risks from different angles.
OpenAI’s warnings focus heavily on the potential for CCP influence over Chinese AI models like Deepseek. The corporate stresses that Chinese regulations could compel Deepseek to “compromise critical infrastructure and sensitive applications” and require user data to be shared with the federal government. This data sharing could enable the event of more sophisticated AI systems aligned with China’s state interests, creating each immediate privacy issues and long-term security threats.
Anthropic’s concerns center on biosecurity risks posed by advanced AI capabilities, no matter their country of origin. In a very alarming disclosure, Anthropic revealed that “Our most up-to-date system, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, demonstrates concerning improvements in its capability to support features of biological weapons development.” This candid admission underscores the dual-use nature of advanced AI systems and the necessity for robust safeguards.
Anthropic also identified what they describe as a “regulatory gap in US chip restrictions” related to Nvidia’s H20 chips. While these chips meet the reduced performance requirements for Chinese export, they “excel at text generation (‘sampling’)—a fundamental component of advanced reinforcement learning methodologies critical to current frontier model capability advancements.” Anthropic urged “immediate regulatory motion” to deal with this potential vulnerability in current export control frameworks.
Google, while acknowledging AI security risks, advocates for a more balanced approach to export controls. The corporate cautions that current AI export rules “may undermine economic competitiveness goals…by imposing disproportionate burdens on U.S. cloud service providers.” As an alternative, Google recommends “balanced export controls that protect national security while enabling U.S. exports and global business operations.”
All three corporations emphasize the necessity for enhanced government evaluation capabilities. Anthropic specifically calls for constructing “the federal government’s capability to check and evaluate powerful AI models for national security capabilities” to higher understand potential misuses by adversaries. This may involve preserving and strengthening the AI Safety Institute, directing NIST to develop security evaluations, and assembling teams of interdisciplinary experts.
Comparison Table: OpenAI, Anthropic, Google
| Area of Focus | OpenAI | Anthropic | |
| Primary Concern | Political and economic threats from state-controlled AI | Biosecurity risks from advanced models | Maintaining innovation while balancing security |
| View on Deepseek R1 | “State-subsidized, state-controlled, and freely available” with Huawei-like risks | Willing to reply “biological weaponization questions” with malicious intent | Less specific deal with Deepseek, more on broader competition |
| National Security Priority | CCP influence and data security risks | Biosecurity threats and chip export loopholes | Balanced export controls that do not burden US providers |
| Regulatory Approach | Voluntary partnership with federal government; single point of contact | Enhanced government testing capability; hardened export controls | “Pro-innovation federal framework”; sector-specific governance |
| Infrastructure Focus | Government adoption of frontier AI tools | Energy expansion (50GW by 2027) for AI development | Coordinated motion on energy, permitting reform |
| Distinctive Suggestion | Tiered export control framework promoting “democratic AI” | Immediate regulatory motion on Nvidia H20 chips exported to China | Industry access to openly available data for fair learning |
Economic Competitiveness Strategies
Infrastructure requirements, particularly energy needs, emerge as a critical think about maintaining U.S. AI leadership. Anthropic warned that “by 2027, training a single frontier AI model would require networked computing clusters drawing roughly five gigawatts of power.” They proposed an ambitious national goal to construct 50 additional gigawatts of power dedicated specifically to the AI industry by 2027, alongside measures to streamline permitting and expedite transmission line approvals.
OpenAI once more frames the competition as an ideological contest between “democratic AI” and “autocratic, authoritarian AI” built by the CCP. Their vision for “democratic AI” emphasizes “a free market promoting free and fair competition” and “freedom for developers and users to work with and direct our tools as they see fit,” inside appropriate safety guardrails.
All three corporations offered detailed recommendations for maintaining U.S. leadership. Anthropic stressed the importance of “strengthening American economic competitiveness” and ensuring that “AI-driven economic advantages are widely shared across society.” They advocated for “securing and scaling up U.S. energy supply” as a critical prerequisite for keeping AI development inside American borders, warning that energy constraints could force developers overseas.
Google called for decisive actions to “supercharge U.S. AI development,” specializing in three key areas: investment in AI, acceleration of presidency AI adoption, and promotion of pro-innovation approaches internationally. The corporate emphasized the necessity for “coordinated federal, state, local, and industry motion on policies like transmission and permitting reform to deal with surging energy needs” alongside “balanced export controls” and “continued funding for foundational AI research and development.”
Google’s submission particularly highlighted the necessity for a “pro-innovation federal framework for AI” that may prevent a patchwork of state regulations while ensuring industry access to openly available data for training models. Their approach emphasizes “focused, sector-specific, and risk-based AI governance and standards” fairly than broad regulation.
Regulatory Recommendations
A unified federal approach to AI regulation emerged as a consistent theme across all submissions. OpenAI warned against “regulatory arbitrage being created by individual American states” and proposed a “holistic approach that allows voluntary partnership between the federal government and the private sector.” Their framework envisions oversight by the Department of Commerce, potentially through a reimagined US AI Safety Institute, providing a single point of contact for AI corporations to have interaction with the federal government on security risks.
On export controls, OpenAI advocated for a tiered framework designed to advertise American AI adoption in countries aligned with democratic values while restricting access for China and its allies. Anthropic similarly called for “hardening export controls to widen the U.S. AI lead” and “dramatically improve the safety of U.S. frontier labs” through enhanced collaboration with intelligence agencies.
Copyright and mental property considerations featured prominently in each OpenAI and Google’s recommendations. OpenAI stressed the importance of maintaining fair use principles to enable AI models to learn from copyrighted material without undermining the industrial value of existing works. They warned that overly restrictive copyright rules could drawback U.S. AI firms in comparison with Chinese competitors. Google echoed this view, advocating for “balanced copyright rules, akin to fair use and text-and-data mining exceptions” which they described as “critical to enabling AI systems to learn from prior knowledge and publicly available data.”
All three corporations emphasized the necessity for accelerated government adoption of AI technologies. OpenAI called for an “ambitious government adoption strategy” to modernize federal processes and safely deploy frontier AI tools. They specifically advisable removing obstacles to AI adoption, including outdated accreditation processes like FedRAMP, restrictive testing authorities, and inflexible procurement pathways. Anthropic similarly advocated for “promoting rapid AI procurement across the federal government” to revolutionize operations and enhance national security.
Google suggested “streamlining outdated accreditation, authorization, and procurement practices” inside the federal government to speed up AI adoption. They emphasized the importance of effective public procurement rules and improved interoperability in government cloud solutions to facilitate innovation.
The great submissions from these leading AI corporations present a transparent message: maintaining American leadership in artificial intelligence requires coordinated federal motion across multiple fronts – from infrastructure development and regulatory frameworks to national security protections and government modernization – particularly as competition from China intensifies.
