admin

Artificial intelligence is no longer a niche tool for tech labs or science-fiction thrillers. It’s now the battleground where the future of American power, prosperity, and freedom will be decided. With the release of ‘Winning the AI Race: America’s AI Action Plan,’ the Trump administration is rightfully treating this moment as the 21st-century equivalent of the space race or the nuclear age. 

This bold strategy outlines over 90 policy actions that span three key pillars: Accelerating Innovation, Building American AI Infrastructure, and Leading in International Diplomacy and Security. Each of these pillars sends a clear message to the world: America intends to lead – not follow – on artificial intelligence. 

And we must. This is a race we can’t afford to lose. 

President Donald Trump’s AI plan: strong, strategic and patriotic 

The Trump administration’s plan does what Washington too often fails to do: it combines vision with action. From fast-tracking permits for critical data centers and chip fabrication plants, to expanding the skilled trades workforce needed to maintain those facilities, the plan hits both high-tech and firsthand realities. 

Crucially, the plan calls for exporting secure, full-stack American AI packages – hardware, software, models, applications and standards – to trusted allies. That’s smart policy. In a world where China exports authoritarian surveillance technology, America must counter with liberty-based alternatives. 

And most refreshingly, the plan defends free speech. It mandates that federal procurement contracts only go to developers of large language models that are free from ideological censorship. That’s a huge win for constitutional values in a time when Big Tech algorithms increasingly silence dissent. 

But here’s the hard truth: AI could also unleash chaos 

The optimism in this action plan is well-founded – but incomplete. As foreign policy analysts Matan Chorev and Joel Predd recently warned in their Foreign Policy article, the U.S. must also assume the worst about artificial intelligence – especially artificial general intelligence (AGI). That’s the version of AI that can perform at or above human levels across a wide range of tasks.  

Unlike nuclear weapons, AGI won’t announce itself with a mushroom cloud. It may slip quietly into our systems, our economy and even our military decision-making – without a clear warning shot. The nightmare scenario? A rogue AI, either built by an enemy nation or evolving beyond human control, triggering economic collapse or catastrophic warfare.  

That’s why the U.S. must not only pursue victory in AI, but vigilance. Planning for worst-case scenarios isn’t fearmongering – it’s common sense. The COVID-19 pandemic taught us what happens when leaders fail to prepare for known risks. With AI, we may not get a second chance.  

We need break-glass plans — now 

What happens if a U.S. company suddenly claims to have developed AGI and asks for national security protections – access to classified data, regulatory exemptions and federal backing? What if China gets there first?  

The Biden-era playbook of strategic ambiguity and global appeasement won’t cut it. America needs break-glass protocols: clear, tested plans to respond to AI emergencies – whether cyberattacks, misinformation campaigns or autonomous systems going rogue. 

This requires massive coordination across the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, our intelligence community and private industry. The federal government must build the analytical muscle to separate hype from real breakthroughs – and act fast when a threat emerges. 

Cyber defenses must be ‘attribution-agnostic’ 

Advanced AI attacks may not come with a digital return address. Whether an attack comes from Beijing, a terrorist network or a self-replicating algorithm, our cyber defenses must be able to detect, contain and recover without waiting for attribution. 

That means hardening critical infrastructure, isolating vulnerable data centers and ensuring military continuity of operations in a high-tech crisis. These aren’t science-fiction concerns – they’re strategic imperatives. 

The world needs American values — not just American technology 

The Trump administration’s emphasis on exporting U.S. technology to allies is critical – but we must also export American values. Freedom. Accountability. Innovation with restraint. Our allies want alternatives to China’s surveillance-driven tech regime. America can lead that coalition – but only if we speak as clearly about ethics as we do about engineering.  

David Sacks, the White House’s AI and crypto czar, put it plainly: ‘To win the AI race, the U.S. must lead in innovation, infrastructure, and global partnerships. At the same time, we must center American workers and avoid Orwellian uses of AI.’ 

He’s right. Victory in AI is not just about lines of code – it’s about preserving what it means to be human in an age of machines. 

Bold innovation, clear-eyed preparedness 

Winning the AI Race is a historic first step. It champions free markets, American jobs, national strength and liberty-based governance in the AI era. But we must not mistake ambition for immunity. 

America needs a dual-track strategy: drive innovation with urgency – and prepare for disaster with equal urgency. Our adversaries won’t wait. Neither will the technology.  

We can – and must – lead the world into the AI future. But let’s do it with eyes wide open, grounded in our values and ready for anything. 

Former President Barack Obama issued a rare statement weighing in on the hunger situation in Gaza on Sunday, suggesting aid must flow to Palestinians regardless of whether Israel can secure a hostage deal for now.

Obama made the statement on social media in reference to reporting from the New York Times stating that ‘Gazans are dying of starvation.’ Israel, which blockaded aid to Gaza earlier this year, has recently begun to airdrop aid resources into the region, and its leaders argue reports of starvation are a false campaign promoted by Hamas. Reporting from Fox News’ Trey Yingst has indicated that hunger is indeed spreading across the region, however.

‘While a lasting resolution to the crisis in Gaza must involve a return of all hostages and a cessation of Israel’s military operations, these articles underscore the immediate need for action to be taken to prevent the travesty of innocent people dying of preventable starvation,’ Obama wrote on X, providing a link to the Times.

‘Aid must be permitted to reach people in Gaza. There is no justification for keeping food and water away from civilian families,’ he added.

President Donald Trump touted U.S. efforts to provide aid to Gaza when asked about the situation on Sunday. Meeting with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at the time, he stated that Europe has not provided aid to Gaza. He also said that Hamas is stealing much of the aid being sent to Palestinians, a claim Israel has put forward repeatedly.

‘When I see the children and when I see, especially over the last couple of weeks people are stealing the food, they’re stealing the money, they’re stealing the money for the food. They’re stealing weapons, they’re stealing everything,’ Trump told reporters.

‘It’s a mess, that whole place is a mess. The Gaza Strip, you know it was given many years ago so they could have peace. That didn’t work out too well,’ he added.

The IDF says it conducted 28 drops in a matter of hours on Sunday, in addition to transferring some 250 aid trucks over the course of the week.

‘Let me be clear: Israel supports aid for civilians, not for Hamas. The IDF will continue to support the flow of humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza,’ an IDF spokesperson said Sunday.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also pushed back on criticism of his regime, arguing that the United Nations has been falsely pushing claims of widespread starvation. He told the Jerusalem Post on Sunday that it has long been Israel’s policy to allow aid into Gaza so long as it did not benefit Hamas.

‘We’ve done this so far,’ Netanyahu told the paper. ‘But the U.N. is spreading lies and falsehoods about Israel. They say we don’t allow humanitarian supplies in, yet we do. There are secure corridors. They’ve always existed, but now it’s official. No more excuses.’

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified a slew of documents this month, revealing that Obama administration officials ‘manufactured’ intelligence to push the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.

Here’s a look at the newly declassified records:

Declassified Presidential Daily Brief

Documents revealed that in the months leading up to the November 2016 election, the intelligence community consistently assessed that Russia was ‘probably not trying … to influence the election by using cyber means.’

One instance was on Dec. 7, 2016, weeks after the election. Then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s talking points stated, ‘Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the U.S. presidential election outcome.’

Fox News Digital obtained a declassified copy of the Presidential Daily Brief, which was prepared by the Department of Homeland Security, with reporting from the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, FBI, National Security Agency, Department of Homeland Security, State Department and open sources, for Obama, dated Dec. 8, 2016.

‘We assess that Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent U.S. election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure,’ the Presidential Daily Brief stated. ‘Russian Government-affiliated actors most likely compromised an Illinois voter registration database and unsuccessfully attempted the same in other states.’

But the brief stated that it was ‘highly unlikely’ the effort ‘would have resulted in altering any state’s official vote result.’

‘Criminal activity also failed to reach the scale and sophistication necessary to change election outcomes,’ it stated. 

The brief noted that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence assessed that any Russian activities ‘probably were intended to cause psychological effects, such as undermining the credibility of the election process and candidates.’

The brief stated that cyber criminals ‘tried to steal data and to interrupt election processes by targeting election infrastructure, but these actions did not achieve a notable disruptive effect.’

Fox News Digital obtained declassified, but redacted, communications from the FBI in the Presidential Daily Brief, stating that it ‘should not go forward until the FBI’ had shared its ‘concerns.’

Those communications revealed that the FBI drafted a ‘dissent’ to the original Presidential Daily Brief. 

The communications revealed that the brief was expected to be published Dec. 9, 2016, the following day, but later communications revealed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ‘based on some new guidance,’ decided to ‘push back publication’ of the Presidential Daily Brief. 

‘It will not run tomorrow and is not likely to run until next week,’ wrote the deputy director of the Presidential Daily Brief at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, whose name is redacted. 

The following day, Dec. 9, 2016, a meeting convened in the White House Situation Room, with the subject line starting: ‘Summary of Conclusions for PC Meeting on a Sensitive Topic (REDACTED.)’

The meeting included top officials in the National Security Council, Clapper, then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-National Security Advisor Susan Rice, then-Secretary of State John Kerry, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, among others, to discuss Russia.

The declassified meeting record, obtained by Fox News Digital, revealed that principals ‘agreed to recommend sanctioning of certain members of the Russian military intelligence and foreign intelligence chains of command responsible for cyber operations as a response to cyber activity that attempted to influence or interfere with U.S. elections, if such activity meets the requirements’ from an executive order that demanded the blocking of property belonging to people engaged in cyber activities.

After the meeting, according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Clapper’s executive assistant emailed intelligence community leaders tasking them to create a new intelligence community assessment ‘per the president’s request’ that detailed the ‘tools Moscow used and actions it took to influence the 2016 election.’

‘ODNI will lead this effort with participation from CIA, FBI, NSA, and DHS,’ the record states.

Later, Obama officials ‘leaked false statements to media outlets’ claiming that ‘Russia has attempted through cyber means to interfere in, if not actively influence, the outcome of an election.’

By Jan. 6, 2017, a new Intelligence Community Assessment was released that, according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ‘directly contradicted the IC assessments that were made throughout the previous six months.’ 

Intelligence officials told Fox News Digital that the ICA was ‘politicized’ because it ‘suppressed intelligence from before and after the election showing Russia lacked intent and capability to hack the 2016 election.’ 

Officials also said it deceived the American public ‘by claiming the IC made no assessment on the ‘impact’ of Russian activities,’ when the intelligence community ‘did, in fact, assess for impact.’ 

‘The unpublished December PDB stated clearly that Russia ‘did not impact’ the election through cyber hacks on the election,’ an official told Fox News Digital.

The official also said the ICA had assessed that ‘Russia was responsible for leaking data from the DNC and DCCC,’ while ‘failing to mention that FBI and NSA previously expressed low confidence in this attribution.’ 

Officials said the intelligence was ‘politicized’ and then ‘used as the basis for countless smears seeking to delegitimize President Trump’s victory, the years-long Mueller investigation, two Congressional impeachments, high level officials being investigated, arrested, and thrown in jail, heightened US-Russia tensions, and more.’

Declassified House Intelligence Committee Report

A report prepared by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in 2020 said the intelligence community did not have any direct information that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to help elect Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election, but, at the ‘unusual’ direction of then-President Barack Obama, published ‘potentially biased’ or ‘implausible’ intelligence suggesting otherwise.

The report, based on an investigation launched by former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., was dated Sept. 18, 2020. At the time of the publication of the report, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was the chairman of the committee.

The report has never before been released to the public and instead has remained highly classified within the intelligence community.

Fox News Digital obtained the ‘fully-sourced limited-access investigation report that was drafted and stored in a limited-access vault at CIA Headquarters.’ The report includes some redactions.

The committee focused on the creation of the Intelligence Community Assessment of 2017, in which then-CIA Director John Brennan pushed for the inclusion of the now-discredited anti-Trump dossier despite knowing it was based largely on ‘internet rumor,’ as Fox News Digital previously reported.

According to the report, the ICA was a ‘high-profile product ordered by the President, directed by senior IC agency heads, and created by just five CIA analysts, using one principal drafter.’

‘Production of the ICA was subject to unusual directives from the President and senior political appointees, and particularly DCIA,’ the report states. ‘The draft was not properly coordinated within CIA or the IC, ensuring it would be published without significant challenges to its conclusions.’

The committee found that the five CIA analysts and drafter ‘rushed’ the ICA’s production ‘in order to publish two weeks before President-elect Trump was sworn-in.’

‘Hurried coordination and limited access to the draft reduced opportunities for the IC to discover misquoting of sources and other tradecraft concerns,’ the report states.

The report states that Brennan ‘ordered the post-election publication of 15 reports containing previously collected but unpublished intelligence, three of which were substandard — containing information that was unclear, of uncertain origin, potentially biased, or implausible — and those became foundational sources for the ICA judgements that Putin preferred Trump over Clinton.’

‘The ICA misrepresented these reports as reliable, without mentioning their significant underlying flaws,’ the committee found.

‘One scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment of a sentence from one of the substandard reports constitutes the only classified information cited to suggest Putin ‘aspired’ to help Trump win,’ the report states, adding that the ICA ‘ignored or selectively quoted reliable intelligence reports that challenged — and in some cases undermined — judgments that Putin sought to elect Trump.’

The report also states that the ICA ‘failed to consider plausible alternative explanations of Putin’s intentions indicated by reliable intelligence and observed Russian actions.’

The committee also found that two senior CIA officers warned Brennan that ‘we don’t have direct information that Putin wanted to get Trump elected.’

Despite those warnings, the Obama administration moved to publish the ICA.

The ICA ‘did not cite any report where Putin directly indicated helping Trump win was the objective.’

The ICA, according to the report, excluded ‘significant intelligence’ and ‘ignored or selectively quoted’ reliable intelligence in an effort to push the Russia narrative.

The report also includes intelligence from a longtime Putin confidant who explained to investigators that ‘Putin told him he did not care who won the election,’ and that Putin ‘had often outlined the weaknesses of both major candidates.’

The report also states that the ICA omitted context showing that the claim that Putin preferred Trump was ‘implausible —if not ridiculous.’

The committee also found that the ICA suppressed intelligence that showed that Russia was actually planning for a Hillary Clinton victory because ‘they knew where (she) stood’ and believed Russia ‘could work with her.’

The committee also noted that the ICA ‘did not address why Putin chose not to leak more discrediting material on Clinton, even as polls tightened in the final weeks of the election.’

The committee also found that the ICA suppressed intelligence showing that Putin was ‘not only demonstrating a clear lack of concern for Trump’s election fate,’ but also indicated ‘that he preferred to see Secretary Clinton elected, knowing she would be a more vulnerable President.’

Declassified Hillary Clinton section of House Intelligence Committee Report

One section of the declassified House Intelligence Committee report states that the material in Putin’s possession included Russian intelligence on Democratic National Committee information allegedly showing that senior Democratic leaders found Clinton’s health to be ‘extraordinarily alarming.’ 

‘As of September 2016, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service had DNC information that President Obama and Party leaders found the state of Secretary Clinton’s health to be ‘extraordinarily alarming,’ and felt it could have ‘serious negative impact’ on her election prospects,’ the report states. ‘Her health information was being kept in ‘strictest secrecy’ and even close advisors were not being fully informed.’ 

The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service also allegedly had DNC communications that showed that ‘Clinton was suffering from ‘intensified psycho-emotional problems, including uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness.” 

‘Clinton was placed on a daily regimen of ‘heavy tranquilizers’ and while afraid of losing, she remained ‘obsessed with a thirst for power,’’ the report states.

The Russians also allegedly had information that Clinton ‘suffered from ‘Type 2 diabetes, Ischemic heart disease, deep vein thrombosis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.’’

The Russians also allegedly possessed a ‘campaign email discussing a plan approved by Secretary Clinton to link Putin and Russian hackers to candidate Trump in order to ‘distract the American public’ from the Clinton email server scandal.’ 

Gabbard, during the White House press briefing Wednesday, said there were ‘high-level DNC emails that detailed evidence of Hillary’s, quote, psycho-emotional problems, uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression and cheerfulness, and that then-Secretary Clinton was allegedly on a daily regimen of heavy tranquilizers.’ 

A tranquilizer is a drug used to reduce mental disturbance, such as anxiety and tension. Tranquilizers are typically prescribed to individuals suffering from anxiety, sleep disturbances and related conditions affecting their mental and physical health. 

A Clinton aide dismissed the claims as ‘ridiculous.’ 

Neither Clinton nor Obama responded to Fox News Digital’s requests for comment. 

President Donald Trump’s approach with Russian President Vladimir Putin pivoted drastically this month when, for the first time since returning to the White House, he not only confirmed his support for Ukraine in a NATO arms agreement but issued an ultimatum to the Kremlin chief.

The warning came in a clear message: Enter into a peace deal with Ukraine or face stiff international sanctions on its top commodity, oil sales.

While the move has been championed by some, it has been questioned by others who debate whether it will be enough to deter Putin’s war ambitions in Ukraine. One security expert is arguing the plan will work, but it might take years to be effective.

‘I think it will be effective, and he’s going to stick to that strategy. He’s going to continue to push Putin to return to the bargaining table and negotiate in good faith, not come to the bargaining table, make promises that the Russians don’t plan on keeping,’ Fred Fleitz, who served as a deputy assistant to Trump and chief of staff of the National Security Council during the president’s first term, told Fox News Digital.

‘That’s something Trump’s not going to tolerate,’ Fleitz added. ‘We will see this is just the first six months of the Trump presidency. This may take a couple of years to solve.’

But Trump campaigned on ending the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, which has proven to be more complicated than he suggested from the campaign trail. And not everyone in the Republican Party has backed his approach when it comes to Europe, including a staunch Trump supporter, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.

‘We do not want to give or sell weapons to Ukraine or be involved in any foreign wars or continue the never-ending flow of foreign aid,’ Greene said on X. ‘We want to solve our own problems plaguing our own people.’ 

Fleitz pointed to Trump’s decision to directly strike Iran and argued it reflected Trump’s ability to be nimble as a leader. 

‘He looked at the intelligence and realized it was getting too close, and he decided to adjust his policy, which was first diplomacy,’ Fleitz said.

‘But Trump also specified something very important. He said to his supporters, ‘I came up with a concept of the America-first approach to U.S. national security, and I decide what’s in it,’ Fleitz added. ‘He has ownership of this approach, and he will adjust if necessary.’

Though Trump had made clear from the campaign trail that he wanted to see Europe take a leading role in the war in Ukraine, last week he countered a major talking point from some within his party, including Vice President JD Vance.

Vance has argued against arming Ukraine and said in an op-ed last year, ‘[It] is not just a matter of dollars. Fundamentally, we lack the capacity to manufacture the amount of weapons Ukraine needs us to supply to win the war.’

Trump agreed to sell NATO nations top U.S. arms that will then be supplied to Ukraine.

‘We want to defend our country. But, ultimately, having a strong Europe is a very good thing,’ Trump said, sitting alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.

Security experts have largely argued that the future of Ukraine’s negotiating ability and, ultimately, the end of the war, will play out on the battlefield. 

On Thursday, John Hardie, deputy director of FDD’s Russia Program, told U.S. lawmakers on the Helsinki Commission, also known as the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, in a defense briefing that Ukraine needs to be supplied with long-range strike capabilities that can hit key Russian missile and drone plants.

‘Ukraine shouldn’t be restricted merely to shooting down ‘arrows’,’ Hardie said. ‘An optimal approach will combine both offense and defense. Ukraine needs to be able to hit the ‘archer’ and the factories that make the ‘arrows.’

‘Putin will continue his unprovoked war so long as he believes it’s sustainable and offers a pathway to achieving his goals,’ Hardie argued. ‘By shoring up Ukraine’s defense of its skies and enabling Ukraine to inflict growing costs on Russia’s war machine, as well as pressuring the Russian economy and exhausting Russia’s offensive potential on the ground, we may be able to change that calculus.’

But Fleitz, who serves as vice chair of the America First Policy Institute’s Center for American Security, said he believes this war will only be brought to an end when an armistice agreement is secured. 

‘I think there’s probably going to be an armistice where both sides will agree to suspend the fighting,’ Fleitz said. ‘Someday, we will find a line where both nations will agree to stop fighting.’

Ultimately, he believes this will happen by Ukraine agreeing not to join NATO for a certain period of time, though with Moscow’s understanding that Kyiv will be heavily armed by Western allies. 

‘I think there’s a way to do this where Russia wouldn’t be concerned about growing Western European influence in Ukraine, and Ukraine would not be worried that Russia will invade once a ceasefire or armistice is declared,’ he added. ‘Maybe this is a pipe dream, but I think that’s the most realistic way to stop the fighting.

‘We know from history conflicts like this take time; peacemaking takes time,’ Fleitz said. ‘I think that over time, Trump is going to have an effect on Putin.’