AI is rapidly becoming the central arena of global competition, shaping economic strength, national security, and geopolitical influence. Yet the United States has not fully embraced AI as a deliberate instrument of foreign policy. At a moment when rival nations, like China, are actively exporting their AI systems, standards, and infrastructure abroad, American influence will increasingly turn on whether other countries build their institutions on U.S. technology or someone else’s.

The U.S. has faced strategic inflection points like this before. During the Cold War, initiatives such as Ping-Pong diplomacy with China and American jazz tours demonstrated that influence is not secured through military alliances alone. Those efforts opened doors when traditional diplomacy stalled, but they primarily shaped perceptions rather than the underlying architecture of foreign institutions.

AI offers something far more consequential. Properly leveraged, AI diplomacy, the strategic use of AI to forge international partnerships and advance national interests, can deliver measurable improvements across education, healthcare, governance, and economic productivity while anchoring global partners to American technological leadership for decades.

The U.S. must adopt a comprehensive AI Diplomacy Doctrine.

Historical diplomatic soft power initiatives succeeded because they humanized the U.S. at moments of geopolitical tension. Jazz tours and sporting exchanges demonstrated openness, creativity, and goodwill. But their impact, while meaningful, was inherently limited. A Harlem Globetrotters basketball game in North Korea or table tennis match in China could change perceptions, but not systems.

That limitation matters. In an era defined by technological competition and economic transformation, diplomacy increasingly turns on who can deliver durable, structural benefits rather than fleeting cultural signals.

That is why a concerted U.S. effort to advance AI diplomacy could prove pivotal in thawing tense relationships and developing long-term partnerships. In practical terms, AI diplomacy means engaging other countries on joint AI education initiatives and rolling out access to U.S. chatbots and technology stacks.

These programs would deliver real benefits, shape long-term technological alignment, and strengthen diplomatic relationships. And access to U.S. AI models and technology stacks would be governed by existing export controls, licensing frameworks, and national security safeguards to mitigate dual-use risks.

AI already represents a significant change from prior diplomatic tools. In education, AI-driven education systems personalize instruction at scale, closing learning gaps in ways traditional classrooms struggle to achieve. In healthcare, AI enables earlier disease detection, faster diagnostics, and more efficient resource allocation, particularly in underserved regions. In business, AI augments human labor, streamlines bureaucratic processes, and accelerates innovation across industries.

This is particularly urgent given current global competition. Chinese open-source AI models are rapidly proliferating across the Pacific region, filling gaps in markets where American companies and institutions have been slow to engage. Easy access to Chinese open-source models, paired with limited U.S. engagement, risks locking countries into Chinese ecosystems that do not align with democratic values or long-term U.S. geopolitical interests.

AI diplomacy offers a correction to that trend. Through education, workforce training, and institutional partnerships, U.S. entities can provide AI skills, education, and infrastructure that anchor other nations to American products, platforms, and governance norms. Training a country’s engineers, educators, and civil servants on U.S.-aligned systems has downstream effects that last decades.

AI diplomacy should be led by the U.S. Department of State, with coordination across the Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, and the private sector. The State Department is best positioned to integrate AI initiatives into foreign policy and bilateral engagement, while Commerce should anchor standards-setting, export alignment, and commercial participation, and Defense should advise on national security and dual-use risks. The State Department could also leverage legacy infrastructure from the U.S. Agency of International Development (USAID) and rebrand it as the U.S. Artificial Intelligence Development Agency (USAID Agency).

Critically, AI diplomacy cannot succeed as a purely governmental effort. Leading U.S. universities with deep expertise in AI education, governance, and deployment must be treated as core diplomatic assets and formally leveraged through public-private partnerships.

By pairing U.S. universities with partner institutions overseas, the U.S. can train students, civil servants, judges, engineers, and regulators on U.S.-aligned AI systems and norms. Younger generations adopt new technologies most quickly, and training them early creates durable, long-term institutional alignment.

A coordinated AI diplomacy strategy positions the U.S. as the trusted provider of AI education, infrastructure, and governance at precisely the moment when global demand is highest and local capacity is weakest.

Unlike ping pong or jazz, AI diplomacy is not ephemeral. It can reshape institutions, raise productivity, and improve lives at scale.

The next global order may not be decided on the battlefield or at treaty tables, but in the race to export AI. The question is whether the U.S. will seize AI diplomacy as a deliberate national strategy through an AI Diplomacy Doctrine, or allow strategic competitors to define the technological and normative foundations of the emerging world order.