NEW DELHI — Dozens of nations, including the United States and China, on Saturday, February 21, 2026, issued a joint declaration calling for “secure, trustworthy and robust” artificial intelligence, but the agreement drew immediate criticism for lacking concrete commitments to regulate the rapidly evolving technology. The statement, signed by 86 countries following a five-day AI Impact Summit, instead emphasizes a series of voluntary, non-binding initiatives, raising concerns about its effectiveness in protecting the public from potential harms.
The summit, the fourth annual global meeting on AI and the first hosted by a developing country, brought together tens of thousands of attendees, including top tech CEOs, to discuss both the potential benefits and the significant risks associated with artificial intelligence. Discussions centered on AI’s promise in areas like drug discovery and translation tools, alongside anxieties about job displacement, the spread of online abuse, and the substantial energy demands of AI infrastructure. The core message of the declaration, however, appears to prioritize innovation over immediate, enforceable safeguards.
US Shifts Position, Signs On to Declaration
The United States, home to leading AI companies like Google and OpenAI, notably did not sign last year’s summit statement, citing concerns that regulation could stifle innovation. Michael Kratsios, head of the US delegation, stated on Friday, “We totally reject global governance of AI.” However, the US reversed course this year, signing both the main declaration and a separate bilateral agreement with India focused on fostering an “unapologetically friendly” environment for AI entrepreneurship, and innovation. The release of the main statement was delayed by a day, according to the Indian government, to allow for greater participation and secure more signatories.
The US-India declaration pledges to “pursue a global approach to AI that is unapologetically friendly to entrepreneurship and innovation,” signaling a continued emphasis on fostering growth within the AI sector. This shift in position, while welcomed by some, has also fueled criticism that the broader declaration prioritizes industry interests over public safety. The US commitment to the main statement, despite previous reservations, suggests a willingness to engage in international dialogue, even if concrete regulatory steps remain elusive.
Concerns Over Lack of Binding Commitments
Critics argue that the summit’s outcome represents another missed opportunity to establish meaningful safeguards for AI development. Amba Kak, co-executive director of the AI Now Institute, described the declaration as “another round of generic voluntary promises,” arguing that its broad endorsement, particularly from the US, reveals an agenda driven by the AI industry rather than genuine public protection. As the Council on Foreign Relations noted in October 2025, defining the “competition” in AI is crucial, and the US and China may be pursuing different goals.
The declaration acknowledges potential security risks associated with AI, including the spread of misinformation, the potential for surveillance, and even the possibility of creating dangerous new pathogens. It calls for “deepening our understanding of the potential security aspects” and emphasizes the importance of industry-led voluntary measures and the adoption of technical solutions. However, it stops short of outlining specific policies or enforcement mechanisms to address these concerns.
The document also addresses the potential impact of AI on the job market, highlighting the need for reskilling initiatives to prepare workers for an “AI-driven economy.” It further underscores the importance of developing energy-efficient AI systems, acknowledging the technology’s growing demand on natural resources. These points, while vital, are presented as recommendations rather than binding obligations.
Differing Approaches to AI Development
The summit unfolded against a backdrop of differing approaches to AI development between the United States and China. According to IEEE Spectrum, the two countries may not be engaged in a traditional “arms race” but are instead pursuing distinct AI futures. The US tends to focus on achieving Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) – AI that surpasses human cognitive abilities – while China’s priorities may lie elsewhere.
The question of how to define and measure AGI remains a significant challenge. As David Sacks, a former AI czar, suggested, the gap between the US and China in AI capabilities may be as little as “three to six months,” but the true significance of such a difference is uncertain. The differing approaches raise questions about whether the US is “racing toward the wrong finish line,” as some analysts have suggested.
The summit’s outcome reflects the complexities of navigating these competing priorities and the challenges of forging international consensus on AI governance. While the declaration represents a step toward global cooperation, its lack of concrete commitments leaves many questions unanswered about the future of AI regulation and its impact on society.
Looking ahead, the focus will likely shift to national-level policy developments and the implementation of voluntary initiatives outlined in the declaration. The next major checkpoint will be the ongoing discussions within the US Congress regarding potential AI legislation, with lawmakers grappling with how to balance innovation with the need for responsible AI development.
What are your thoughts on the summit’s outcome? Share your comments below and join the conversation.
