Xi urges US cooperation on AI as coalition of 20 nations forms

By Splitfeed EditorialLast updated Sep 26, 2026, 20:10 UTC

In late September 2026, Chinese President Xi Jinping made a public appeal for the United States to cooperate with China on addressing AI dangers. The call came around the same time, between September 22 and 25, that a separate coalition of 20 nations formally came together to tackle AI risks. That coalition included South Africa, Canada, Germany, and the European Union, among others. Notably absent from the group were the United States, China, and the United Kingdom, the three countries that house some of the most advanced AI development programs in the world.

The significance of this moment lies in the gap between the stated concern and the actual alignment. A broad multilateral framework is taking shape without the participation of the world's two largest AI powers, which raises questions about how effective any coordinated safety effort can be if the leading developers are outside it. Xi's appeal for bilateral US-China cooperation, made at nearly the same moment China declined to join the 20-nation group, adds a layer of tension: it is not clear whether China's absence reflects a preference for bilateral arrangements, a disagreement over the terms of the coalition, or something else entirely. The same question applies to the United States and the United Kingdom.

None of the three major camps, Pro-AI, Anti-AI, and Middle Ground, have published direct reactions to this story yet. Based on their typical positions, Pro-AI voices would likely argue that international cooperation on AI governance risks slowing innovation and that bilateral agreements between major powers are more efficient than broad coalitions. Anti-AI voices would probably treat the absence of the US, China, and UK as a serious failure of governance at exactly the moment when guardrails matter most. Middle Ground observers would likely see the 20-nation coalition as a meaningful but incomplete step, and frame the remaining question as whether the largest players can be brought in before the framework becomes irrelevant.

The argument is unlikely to resolve until there is a clearer signal from Washington, Beijing, or London about whether they intend to engage with the coalition, pursue separate arrangements, or let the diplomatic moment pass. Any formal response from the US State Department or a follow-up summit on AI governance in the coming months would be the clearest indicator of where this is heading.