France: Analysing the Growing Divide in AI Policy at the Paris Action Summit

At the centre of the 2025 Paris Action Summit's most intense debates were United States Vice President J. D. Vance and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, whose contrasting positions highlighted fundamental differences in transatlantic political philosophy. The exchange laid bare a growing rift in how the United States and the European Union perceive the role of the state in regulating new technologies, and what trade-offs are acceptable in the pursuit of economic competitiveness, public trust, and civil liberties.

Vice President Vance issued strong criticisms of Europe’s regulatory framework, particularly the recently adopted AI Act, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and the Digital Services Act. He warned that these laws, by imposing burdensome compliance costs, risk strangling technological innovation and disadvantaging startups and AI firms. According to Vance, such measures could "throttle economic development" and cede strategic ground to less regulated rivals. He further cautioned that similar tendencies within American institutions—such as the Federal Communications Commission—could undermine the United States' global technological leadership if left unchecked.

In a broader critique of content moderation and information governance, Vance rejected what he called “governmental overreach in the name of combating misinformation.” He maintained that freedom of speech should not be subject to political interference, and argued that efforts to regulate content online often blur the line between protecting the public and suppressing dissent. “The difference between saving children from being molested by online predators and denying adults the chance to participate in public discourse is of utmost importance,” he asserted. Vance concluded that the Trump administration remains committed to ensuring American AI leadership by resisting what he called “external barriers” and unnecessary interference.

President Ursula von der Leyen, however, defended the European model as one grounded in ethical responsibility. She insisted that regulation was not antithetical to innovation, but rather essential to sustaining it. Without credibility, transparency, and accountability, she warned, public trust in AI would erode, triggering resistance to its wider deployment in society. Von der Leyen positioned the EU’s AI Act as a balanced and forward-looking approach—one that seeks to encourage technological advancement while safeguarding citizens from misuse, discrimination, and manipulation.

The European Commission has pledged €50 billion to support the development and deployment of artificial intelligence across the Union. However, von der Leyen stressed that this investment is contingent upon strict regulatory oversight, warning of the dangers of an AI market left to operate without guardrails. She pointed to the risks of mass surveillance, algorithmic bias, and the spread of disinformation as reasons why AI governance must be shaped by ethical imperatives, not simply market forces.

The summit also turned to the role of China in the rapidly evolving global AI landscape. Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Guoqing addressed the forum directly and criticised the portrayal of Chinese firms as a security threat. He argued that international cooperation in AI development was essential, and accused Western powers of politicising the technology. According to Zhang, China’s AI firms should not be viewed through a lens of suspicion but rather seen as contributors to a shared global effort.

Vice President Vance, however, remained sceptical. He warned that authoritarian regimes controlling essential AI infrastructure could pose profound risks to global security. In his view, allowing such regimes to dominate critical areas of technological development is incompatible with democratic values and international stability. The question of trust in the global AI supply chain, he insisted, cannot be separated from the nature of the regimes involved.

What emerged clearly from the Paris summit was not only a clash of policy preferences but also a clash of visions. The European Union continues to position itself as the moral steward of technological governance, while the United States, particularly under the Trump administration, is focused on reducing barriers to growth and maintaining competitive advantage. These opposing trajectories reflect a broader conflict between regulation-driven governance and laissez-faire industrial policy, each with its own risks and benefits.

As artificial intelligence reshapes global economics, public life, and security strategy, the lack of alignment between leading powers becomes increasingly problematic. The summit made one fact unmistakably clear: without sustained international dialogue and the political will to find common ground, the governance of AI will remain fragmented, inconsistent, and vulnerable to exploitation. The stakes are global, and the time for unilateralism has passed.