CHINE PERSPECTIVE

Chinese media coverage of the American AI legislative framework fits into a carefully orchestrated CPC narrative: that of a China that not only rivals the US technologically but offers a superior governance model to Western regulatory disorder. The Global Times, true to its wolf warrior register, frames Trump's framework as an 'admission of weakness' — Washington having to legislate because its companies are out of control, while Beijing has maintained harmony between innovation and state supervision. Xinhua adopts a more diplomatic but equally strategic tone, emphasizing that China proposed the creation of a World AI Cooperation Organization (WAICO) in July 2025 — an attempt to shape global governance before American or European norms become the de facto standard.

China's regulatory apparatus is considerably more advanced than Western coverage suggests. The cybersecurity law amendment, effective January 1, 2026, explicitly integrates AI governance provisions. The national AI Governance Framework, published in September 2025, articulates principles that Beijing seeks to export through multilateral institutions. The official vocabulary is codified: 'peaceful development,' 'digital community of destiny,' 'win-win cooperation.' Behind these euphemisms, the SCMP notes that Beijing's absolute priority is data control and algorithmic sovereignty, not citizen protection.

The central paradox, carefully concealed by state media, is the objective convergence between Washington and Beijing on the primacy of innovation and rejection of the European model. Neither the US nor China wants a binding AI Act. But where Trump trusts the market, Xi trusts the Party. Both approaches share one conviction: regulation must not impede the race for technological supremacy. The 'century of humiliation' narrative transposes here: any Western standard imposed on China is perceived as a neocolonial attempt to curb Chinese technological ascendancy.