Why U.S. Lawmakers Say Losing the AI Race to China Is an Unacceptable National Security Risk

This perspective was echoed by Chairman Brian Mast of the House Foreign Affairs Committee in a related hearing, who stated simply, "It is a fact that the AI arms race directly impacts our military competitiveness with China. That cannot be disputed" . The testimony made it clear that the chips powering large language models are also the engines of next-generation command-and-control networks and autonomous systems that will transform warfare .

The High Stakes of Economic Dominance

The hearing consistently paired military security with economic prosperity. Senator Jim Banks captured this dual imperative, telling the committee that "the nation that leads in AI will set the terms of the world’s economy and command the high ground in military power" . Witnesses warned that allowing China's state-subsidized companies to pull ahead would cost the U.S. market share in what could become "the most valuable market in human history" . The overarching message was that ceding AI leadership would mean ceding control of the global economic rules and standards for the 21st century.

The Battle Lines: Chips vs. Implementation

While the U.S. maintains a clear edge in the models and chips that capture headlines, testimony from other hearings in the same period highlighted a more complicated reality. An analysis presented to the Committee on Homeland Security pointed out a dangerous asymmetry: "The United States is winning the AI race on the dimensions we can see — the models and the chips. We are losing it on the dimensions that will ultimately decide the outcome: data and implementation" .

This assessment warned that China's strategy focuses on winning through large-scale deployment and diffusing its technology across the globe, an approach that could negate America's current technical lead in the long run . This two-speed competition—one for pure innovation and another for practical dominance—was a recurring theme that added urgency to the legislators' calls for action.

Policy Prescriptions: The Centrality of Export Controls

The policy response advocated by witnesses was unified and uncompromising. The primary recommendation was a total prohibition on the sale of advanced AI chips and semiconductor manufacturing equipment to China. Witnesses argued that the U.S. advantage in high-end compute is the fundamental chokepoint preventing China from taking the lead, making export controls the single most effective lever of strategic competition . Oren M. Cass, Chief Economist at American Compass, testified directly that to "maintain and grow our advantage in AI... the United States must prohibit all sales of advanced AI chips and semiconductor manufacturing equipment to China" .

This strategic focus on compute power was not just about the present but about preventing China from closing a critical gap. Another witness warned that "there should be no licenses granted for advanced AI chips to China, period" . Echoing this sentiment, Congressman Michael McCaul discussed the importance of his ENFORCE Act, a bill designed to do exactly that—prevent the sale of military-grade AI technology to China .

Chairman Moolenaar introduced another legislative tool, the Chip Security Act, which would require location verification on advanced AI chips to prevent them from being diverted to China through third countries or smuggling networks . This addressed the committee's detailed findings on China's multi-pronged campaign to acquire U.S. technology through IP theft, illegal chip smuggling, and aggressive state subsidies .

The June 2026 hearing demonstrated that for U.S. policymakers, the AI competition with China is not a question of industrial policy but a core national security challenge. The testimony created a clear narrative: allowing a strategic competitor to lead in AI is a decision with direct and immediate consequences for national defense, economic health, and the country's standing in the world.