Senator Dave McCormick (R-PA) did not mince words when asked about a forthcoming panel discussion organized by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) that includes Chinese artificial intelligence leaders. In an interview this week, McCormick called the idea of including those leaders in American AI planning “crazy.”

“We are in an existential fight with China for leadership in AI,” McCormick said. “The winner of that battle depends most on what we do. We can compete and be a leader. But the Chinese are trying to infiltrate and steal our technology. I view China as an adversary and the biggest threat geopolitically.”

The exchange highlights a widening fracture in Washington over how to handle China’s AI ambitions. On one side, Sanders and some lawmakers argue that dialogue and inclusion can help align global AI safety standards and avoid runaway development. On the other, McCormick and a growing bloc of Republicans — along with some Democrats — see China’s state-backed AI push as an existential threat that demands walls, not bridges.

McCormick’s position carries weight because he is not a generic political newcomer. Before entering the Senate, he was a senior executive at Bridgewater Associates and served as CEO of the blockchain software company Figure Technologies. He also holds a Ph.D. in international relations from Princeton, where his doctoral research focused on China’s military modernization. When he calls the AI race existential, he is not using the word lightly.

The Sanders panel and the engagement debate

Sanders has scheduled a panel discussion for this week featuring two Chinese AI leaders. The senator’s office has not released an official list of participants, but sources familiar with the planning say the event is intended to explore avenues for cooperation on AI safety, a topic that has gained urgency after warnings from researchers about the risks of unaligned AI systems.

McCormick rejected that logic outright. “Isn’t it true that they are going to try to steal it anyway?” the interviewer asked. “So why make it easy for the Communist Party to steal our technology by including them in our planning meetings? Because they’ve been stealing intellectual property for decades, right?”

McCormick responded: “Absolutely. And it is insidious throughout the supply chain. I introduced legislation to ensure China wouldn’t get access to advanced chips or gain access to data centers. They have a comprehensive strategy for stealing our IP. America is at the cutting edge of innovation; China is lagging us. But they are closing that gap quickly. They will be able to accelerate closing that gap if we make it easy for them. We need strong protections against China taking advantage of the naïve thinking you described from Bernie Sanders.”

The reference to “naïve thinking” captures a deeper ideological split. Proponents of engagement argue that China will build its own AI capabilities regardless of US restrictions, and that inclusion in global governance frameworks at least gives the US a voice in setting rules. McCormick and his allies counter that any information shared in planning meetings — even at the level of grand strategy — can be weaponized by China’s dual-use innovation system, in which academic and commercial advances are quickly funneled into military applications.

A history of intellectual property theft

The senator’s accusation that China systematically steals American IP is not new. A 2023 report from the US Trade Representative estimated that IP theft, trade secret misappropriation, and cyber-enabled espionage cost the US economy between $225 billion and $600 billion annually. China has been the primary state actor implicated in these activities, though the frequency of high-profile cases has declined as Beijing has tightened domestic cyber controls — not because the behavior stopped, but because it shifted to more sophisticated methods.

In the AI domain specifically, the US government has already taken significant steps to block China’s access to critical hardware. The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security has imposed export controls on advanced semiconductors, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and certain AI software. In October 2022 and again in 2023, the Biden administration tightened rules to restrict the sale of Nvidia’s A100 and H100 GPUs to China. The Trump administration maintained and in some cases expanded those restrictions.

McCormick’s own legislative efforts have targeted loopholes. He introduced a bill that would extend export controls to cover “advanced chips” destined for Chinese data centers, and his language in the interview suggests he wants to close any exceptions that allow Chinese companies to acquire US AI technology through third countries or shell corporations.

The Fed, energy, and the broader economic picture

The interview also covered Kevin Warsch’s nomination to lead the Federal Reserve, a topic that seemed unrelated but connects to the AI story through the lens of productivity. McCormick predicted that Warsch would be confirmed by mid-May, replacing Jerome Powell. When asked about interest rates, McCormick pointed to AI-driven productivity gains as a deflationary force that would give the Fed more flexibility.

“The testimony Chairman Warsch gave in terms of AI productivity impact — I think that will help think about interest rates going forward,” McCormick said. “That is deflationary, and it probably gives the Fed more flexibility than they otherwise would have.”

That statement is a relatively rare acknowledgment from a conservative lawmaker that AI might help tame inflation, rather than only being a threat to jobs or national security. It suggests McCormick sees AI as a dual-edged sword — a source of economic advantage that must be protected from Chinese theft, but also a technology that can make American workers more productive and the economy more resilient.

On energy, McCormick discussed his “Unlock American Energy Jobs Act,” which aims to shorten permitting timelines for pipelines and drilling. He argued that the current permitting process — which he said takes five to six years, longer than it took the US to win World War II — is idling $1.35 trillion in investment. That investment, he said, could flow into the energy infrastructure needed to power the data centers that train and run the next generation of AI models.

What inclusion of Chinese AI leaders would mean

The immediate question is whether Sanders’ panel will actually move the needle on US policy. Sanders sits on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and he chairs the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Retirement Security. He has no direct jurisdiction over AI policy, but his visibility and willingness to challenge the anti-China consensus make him a useful sounding board for voices that favor engagement.

Opposition from someone like McCormick, who sits on the Senate Banking Committee and the Joint Economic Committee, means any move toward including China in US AI planning will face fierce resistance. The Biden administration and now the Trump administration have both pursued a strategy of “small yard, high fence” — restricting only the most sensitive technologies while allowing other forms of cooperation. McCormick wants the yard to be much larger and the fence higher.

The big picture: an existential fight

McCormick’s rhetoric — “existential fight” — echoes language used by intelligence officials. In 2023, CIA Director William Burns said China is “the most consequential geopolitical challenge” the US faces. Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines told Congress that China is “the most significant threat to our national security and economic competitiveness.”

The difference between McCormick and some of these officials is that he sees inclusion in planning meetings as a direct threat, not a potential avenue for de-escalation. Where Sanders sees an opportunity to set guardrails, McCormick sees an invitation to steal the car.

“America is at the cutting edge of innovation. China is lagging us, but they are closing that gap quickly,” McCormick said. “They will be able to accelerate closing that gap if we make it easy for them.”

For now, the US policy is likely to remain one of managed competition: collaboration on climate and health, but not on AI governance frameworks that China could exploit. Sanders’ panel will test whether there is any appetite on the left to challenge that consensus. If McCormick’s reaction is any guide, the answer is a firm no.