US and UK decline to sign Paris Summit Declaration on ‘Inclusive’ AI

At a high-profile summit in Paris, the United States and the United Kingdom opted not to endorse a declaration advocating for "inclusive and sustainable" artificial intelligence, dealing a setback to efforts for a unified global approach to AI governance and regulation.

The declaration, endorsed by 60 nations—including France, China, India, Japan, Australia, and Canada—outlined key principles such as ensuring AI remains transparent, ethical, secure, and trustworthy while promoting sustainability for both humanity and the environment.

UK and US Cite Governance Concerns

A spokesperson for the UK government explained that, while the country supported much of the declaration, it felt the document fell short in addressing critical aspects of global AI governance and national security risks. “We continue collaborating closely with international partners, as seen in our signing of agreements on AI sustainability and cybersecurity at the summit. However, this declaration lacked sufficient practical clarity on global oversight and did not fully tackle national security challenges posed by AI,” the spokesperson stated.

Shortly after, US Vice President JD Vance took the stage at the Grand Palais, delivering a pointed critique of European regulatory policies on technology. He warned against aligning too closely with China and condemned what he called Europe’s tendency toward overregulation.

Asked whether the UK’s refusal to sign was influenced by the US, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s office denied any coordination, stating they were “unaware of the US position.” However, a government source dismissed claims that Britain was trying to align itself with Washington’s stance.

Concerns Over UK’s AI Leadership

Criticism followed the UK’s decision, with advocacy groups warning that it could undermine the country’s standing as a leader in ethical AI. Andrew Dudfield, head of AI at Full Fact, cautioned that the UK risks "diminishing its credibility" as a champion for responsible AI development. Similarly, Gaia Marcus of the Ada Lovelace Institute expressed concerns that the UK’s move might signal a retreat from international AI governance efforts.

Despite the UK and US holding out, the Élysée Palace suggested that additional countries might still sign the declaration following further discussions at the two-day summit.

US Criticizes EU’s Approach to AI Regulation

In his address, Vice President Vance reiterated US reservations about strict AI regulations, stating that excessive oversight could stifle a transformative industry. His remarks were directed at European regulatory measures, including the Digital Services Act and GDPR, which he suggested impose unnecessary constraints on technological innovation.

“We must build regulatory frameworks that encourage AI development, not suffocate it,” Vance said. “Our European allies should approach this frontier with optimism rather than fear.”

Vance also warned against cooperation with authoritarian regimes, indirectly referencing China. Without naming the country explicitly, he criticized past partnerships with governments exporting surveillance technology and telecommunications infrastructure, cautioning that such alliances could lead to long-term dependency.

As Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Guoqing sat nearby, Vance remarked, “History has shown that partnering with such regimes often means surrendering control of your nation’s data and infrastructure. If a deal seems too good to be true, remember—if you’re not paying for the product, you are the product.”

Shifting Focus from AI Safety to Innovation

Vance’s speech also challenged the global AI discourse, particularly in relation to last year’s AI Safety Summit hosted by the UK. He suggested that excessive focus on AI risks could stifle progress, referencing previous international meetings where discussions were “too cautious and risk-averse.”

His remarks signaled a shift in US priorities—moving away from AI safety as the dominant theme and toward fostering AI innovation with minimal regulatory barriers. This divergence in approach highlights the growing divide among global leaders on how best to shape the future of AI development and governance.