LOS ANGELES, September 22, 2026 – The United States and China have come to an agreement to create a formal mechanism where both parties can discuss any risks associated with artificial intelligence, which could be a small step, yet an important one, as the leaders are going to meet soon.
The agreement was reached after the lengthy discussions in New York between the US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and the Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng. The discussions were related to trade and technology; however, artificial intelligence was among those topics that occupied a special place.
“We have now formalized something called the USA-China AI Dialogues,” Bessent said. He said the two sides plan to meet again in roughly two months in Shenzhen, China.
The framework would also incorporate a system for communicating during emergencies related to AI. This was described by Bessent as an “incident line” used to stay in touch if an artificial intelligence system or cyber operation, or any other technology incident, turns into a national security crisis.
That may sound like diplomatic plumbing. It is not.
The US and China are engaged in a larger struggle over semiconductors, computing power, military uses, and control of advanced technologies. It has already led to export controls, investment reviews, and increasing tensions over technology dependencies. But having such a hotline at least decreases the risk that any failure or even misperception of failure will escalate based on a misunderstanding because of insufficient information.
Details are not clear. No one has revealed publicly how exactly the notification process would be conducted, which incidents would activate it, or whether it would involve technical experts, military representatives, or diplomats. Chinese state-controlled media reported that the talks were “candid, in-depth, and constructive,” but did not provide many specifics about the AI section of the talks.
The above-mentioned dialogue would be a challenge for the decision-makers since there is an obvious dilemma in their minds. Both Washington and Beijing want to reduce the risk associated with AI; however, neither of the sides wants to make the other side win due to the connection between AI and economics and its impact on national security.
Moreover, Bessent has suggested that the US should be concerned more about defense resilience than quick deployment of commercial AI. He was also against providing legal immunity from liability to leading firms engaged in AI development, saying that the firms should not be immune since they speak about the catastrophic risks.
It will make a difference here as well. An agreement on artificial intelligence internationally is destined to encounter challenges from domestic debates about corporate accountability, national-security classifications and liability in cases of damage caused by a high-tech system.
For the time being, it can be described as a way of releasing steam rather than a major development. It cannot resolve the U.S.-China rivalry in the realm of technology, and it cannot reduce mutual distrust either. But when two rivals create technologies whose effects are uncertain for both sides, maintaining communication channels seems like a good idea.
