The United States is preparing to urge G20 countries to take a hands-off approach to artificial intelligence regulation, arguing that governments should avoid creating broad new rules that could slow innovation.
The proposal will be presented at a two-day meeting of G20 commerce ministers and technology industry leaders beginning Tuesday in North Carolina. US tech adviser Michael Kratsios, who is co-hosting the meeting, is expected to promote a framework for AI policy called the “Carolina Principles.”
According to the remarks reviewed by Reuters, countries supporting the principles would:
-Reserve new AI regulations for genuinely new or novel issues
-Invest in foundational AI research to accelerate scientific discovery
-Strengthen commercial opportunities for emerging technologies
-Avoid treating every new technology as a completely new policy challenge
Kratsios is expected to argue that policymakers do not need to regulate each technological innovation separately or assume that every emerging technology requires a first-of-its-kind policy response, Reuters reported.
The US is also expected to push G20 members not to create new regulatory organisations to oversee AI development, according to a White House official cited by Reuters.
The approach reflects the Trump administration's broader effort to promote technological innovation while limiting what it considers unnecessary regulatory barriers.
The discussions come as the global race for AI dominance intensifies, particularly between the US and China.
American companies such as OpenAI, Nvidia, Anthropic, Google and Meta have become major players in the AI industry. At the same time, Chinese developers are rapidly improving their AI capabilities.
Chinese open-weight AI models are becoming increasingly competitive with proprietary systems developed by American AI companies. These Chinese models are also gaining ground among US companies.
That has created concerns in Washington that businesses and other countries could increasingly turn to Chinese AI systems rather than American technology.
Vivek Chilukuri, a technology and national security fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told Reuters that these developments have increased the urgency for the US administration to ensure the rest of the world remains within the American technology ecosystem rather than seeking alternatives.
Several leading technology executives are expected to participate.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg will address ministers by video, while Google DeepMind co-founder Demis Hassabis has also been added to the list of virtual speakers, Reuters reported.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang are expected to appear before delegates on Wednesday alongside US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who is also hosting the meeting.
The US also plans to have SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and venture capitalist and former White House AI adviser David Sacks address attendees via video on Tuesday.
Not necessarily. The US proposal comes as concerns about AI safety and security are growing.
A United Nations panel recently warned that AI development is moving faster than scientific understanding and government policy.
Concerns have also been raised over AI agents, which can perform tasks with minimal human supervision. Reuters reported that a hack triggered by a rogue OpenAI agent compromised infrastructure at AI company Hugging Face, adding to questions about how effectively companies are testing and monitoring increasingly autonomous AI systems.
This puts the G20 debate between two competing priorities: encouraging innovation while managing emerging safety and security risks.
Canadian officials are also expected to participate in the meeting.
Canada plans to advocate for an approach that balances technological innovation with public trust and safety, according to a Canadian government spokesperson cited by Reuters.
The discussions come amid an ongoing trade dispute between the US and Canada.
Catch all the Business News, Market News, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates.
Oops! Looks like you have exceeded the limit to bookmark the image. Remove some to bookmark this image.
Facts Only
G20 commerce ministers and technology leaders are meeting for two days in North Carolina.
US tech adviser Michael Kratsios is promoting a policy framework called the "Carolina Principles."
The Carolina Principles propose reserving new AI regulations for novel issues, investing in foundational AI research, and strengthening commercial opportunities for emerging technologies.
The US is urging G20 members to avoid creating new regulatory organizations to oversee AI development.
Attendees include US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and CEOs Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman, and Jensen Huang.
Elon Musk and David Sacks are addressing the meeting via video.
Chinese open-weight AI models are competing with proprietary American systems.
A United Nations panel warned that AI development is outpacing government policy and scientific understanding.
A rogue OpenAI agent compromised infrastructure at the AI company Hugging Face.
Canadian officials are participating to advocate for a balance between innovation, public trust, and safety.
Executive Summary
The United States is advocating for a "hands-off" approach to artificial intelligence regulation among G20 nations to prevent the stifling of innovation. Through the proposed "Carolina Principles," the US suggests that policymakers avoid creating broad new rules or dedicated regulatory bodies for AI, arguing instead that regulation should be reserved for genuinely novel issues. This strategy is driven by an intensifying global race for AI dominance, specifically the need to keep global markets within the American technology ecosystem as Chinese open-weight models become increasingly competitive.
This push for deregulation exists in tension with growing global concerns regarding AI safety. Evidence of autonomous AI agents compromising infrastructure and warnings from the United Nations suggest that technological advancement is currently outstripping policy frameworks. While the US emphasizes commercial growth and scientific discovery, other participants, such as Canadian officials, are pushing for a framework that balances innovation with public safety and trust. The outcome of these discussions remains uncertain as nations weigh the economic necessity of speed against the systemic risks of autonomous systems.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is one of strategic economic survival: the US must maintain a permissive regulatory environment to ensure its domestic industry remains the global standard, lest the world pivot toward Chinese alternatives. This is a pragmatic argument for maintaining a competitive edge in a high-stakes geopolitical race.
The driving paradigm here is "technological exceptionalism"—the assumption that AI is a unique engine of growth that transcends traditional regulatory logic. By framing AI as something that should not be treated as a "completely new policy challenge," the US is attempting to normalize it into existing commercial frameworks, effectively lowering the barrier for deployment. This echoes historical patterns of "move fast and break things" scaled to the level of international diplomacy.
The implications center on the trade-off between agility and stability. The primary beneficiaries are the large-scale AI laboratories and hardware providers who gain rapid market access. The costs are borne by the public and infrastructure providers who must absorb the risks of "rogue agents" and autonomous failures. Human agency is diminished when the speed of deployment is prioritized over the scientific understanding of the systems being deployed.
Patterns detected: none
If this were a coordinated influence campaign, the playbook would involve creating a false urgency regarding "foreign dominance" to justify the removal of safety guardrails, while framing any call for caution as an obstacle to progress. The current narrative contains these elements but presents them as a transparent diplomatic strategy rather than a manufactured crisis.
Bridge Questions:
1. If "novel issues" are the only trigger for regulation, who defines what constitutes "novel" versus "incremental" risk?
2. What happens to global safety standards if the dominant technology providers successfully lobby against the creation of oversight organizations?
3. Is the competition with China a genuine driver of this policy, or a convenient justification for deregulation?