In a recent Bloomberg Opinion piece, Catherine Thorbecke sounded a timely warning. President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariff proposals, framed as economic pressure on China, risk undercutting fragile global efforts to govern artificial intelligence responsibly.
The spotlight of the article falls on a particularly sensitive target: Nvidia’s AI chips. By placing these high value technologies on the bargaining table, Trump is signalling that AI hardware is no longer just about innovation or competition. It is now a strategic lever in a broader geopolitical contest.
But here’s the real concern. Turning AI into a bargaining chip could unravel ongoing efforts by the international community to establish shared standards on how AI should be developed, used, and safeguarded.
Tariffs in a Time of Tech Rivalry
Trump’s tariff push includes a 60% levy on Chinese goods, along with fresh investigations into industries such as pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. The intention may be to contain China’s rise in strategic technologies. But these actions are unfolding at a time when AI has become more than just a technical tool. It is a matter of national interest, international security, and long term global stability.
Unilateral action, even if strategically driven, can upset fragile alignment among countries. States that might otherwise participate in multilateral risk governance could now shift toward nationalist innovation strategies. Instead of openness and accountability, we may see more behind closed door acceleration, where safety is sidelined in the race for dominance.
Why This Matters for Risk Professionals
At first glance, this may seem like just another trade dispute. But for those managing strategic and emerging risks, there is a deeper concern.
When advanced AI technologies become tools of political negotiation, it signals that long-term safety and accountability may be taking a back seat. This affects more than global markets. It affects how AI is governed, by whom, and for what purpose.
Risk professionals are uniquely positioned to see these ripple effects. The focus should not only be on who leads the AI race, but also on:
- How AI is being used across industries
- Who is responsible when things go wrong
- Whether shared rules are in place to manage misuse or failure
Trade tensions may come and go. But a fractured approach to AI governance could leave lasting vulnerabilities in systems that are increasingly shaping business, security, and society.
In risk management, it’s not just the loud headlines that matter. Often, it’s the quiet shifts beneath the surface that shape the future.
Where We Go From Here
The race for AI is no longer just about technical capacity or economic strategy. It is political. Governments will manoeuvre. Markets will adjust. But for those responsible for protecting organizational, national, or societal interests, the true challenge lies in understanding these changes and anticipating consequences that may emerge well beyond today’s headlines.
ARiMI will continue to follow these developments and reflect on their implications for leaders managing risk at the intersection of strategy, innovation, and governance.
Sources:
- Catherine Thorbecke. Nvidia’s AI Chips Do Not Belong on the Bargaining Table. Bloomberg Opinion, 17 April 2025