The Global Debate Over Argentina's Plan to Grant Legal Personhood to AI

In early June 2026, a policy proposal from Argentina's presidential palace ignited an intellectual firestorm, staging a direct confrontation between techno-libertarian ambition and stark historical warning. The subject: whether a nation should grant full legal personhood to corporations run not by people, but by artificial intelligence.

The debate unfolded rapidly through a series of Financial Times op-eds, pulling the issue from the realms of theoretical policy into a concrete, high-profile international clash.

The Opening Move: Milei’s 'Non-Human Corporation'

President Javier Milei launched the discourse with a June 4, 2026 op-ed in the Financial Times, co-signed with his Minister of Deregulation, Federico Sturzenegger . The article defended a legislative package sent to Argentina’s Congress, which proposes the most profound reform to Argentine corporate law in decades. The centerpiece is a call for "a new corporate category in Argentine law: the non-human corporation" .

A 'non-human corporation' is defined as a legal entity operated entirely by AI agents or algorithms, without the requirement for human employees or managers. These entities would possess their own legal personality with limited liability, capable of making autonomous decisions in unpredictable environments . Milei explicitly frames this as a bid to make Argentina the 21st-century haven for AI, akin to 17th-century Amsterdam for Dutch merchants .

The Three Pillars of the Argentine AI Strategy

The legislative proposal rests on three interconnected pillars designed to attract multinational tech companies :

1. No Prior Regulation: A firm state commitment to keep AI completely unregulated, explicitly rejecting what Milei called the "dead hand of premature regulation" that could stifle development .
2. The 'Non-Human Corporation' Legal Entity: The creation of a new legal form granting personhood to AI-run entities, allowing them to contract, own assets, and operate with limited liability, even without human shareholders or managers .
3. A Low-Tax and Flexible Fiscal Regime: Tax advantages intended to encourage rapid experimentation and investment, creating an attractive environment for AI and blockchain-based companies .

The bill also includes provisions for "sociedades automatizadas" (automated companies) and Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), signaling a broader ambition to become a global sandbox for algorithmic commerce .

The Rebuttal: Harari’s Warning of an 'AI State'

Just four days later, on June 8, 2026, historian and author Yuval Noah Harari delivered a forceful counter-argument in the Financial Times under the title, “We must not grant AI agents legal personhood” . Harari, who had already been warning about AI personhood at global forums like Davos 2026, now had a concrete, governmental proposal to critique .

Harari’s central thesis is that granting legal personality to non-human agents breaks a fundamental link between power and accountability. His key arguments form a comprehensive warning:

• The Accountability Gap: A human CEO who commits fraud can be jailed, but an AI cannot. By giving AI-run companies legal protection (limited liability) without human accountability, the law would create a powerful, unpunishable class of economic actor .
• The Uncontrollable 'AI State': Harari warned the initiative could lead to an uncontrollable “Estado de IA” or AI state, where autonomous corporations operate outside the reach of democratic institutions and the justice system .
• A 'Master Key' to Society: He described legal personhood as a “llave maestra” (master key) that would allow non-human agents to access finance, economics, and politics, inserting them into systems they could manipulate without direct responsibility .
• Weaponizing Corporate Law: Harari noted how existing legal personhood for corporations already creates power imbalances. Combining this with AI that can act at machine speed and scale, he argued, would massively amplify those risks .

Milei’s Direct Response and the Escalating Debate

The exchange did not remain a one-off volley. Within hours of Harari’s op-ed circulating, President Milei responded personally on social media. He welcomed the clash of ideas, calling the exchange “fascinating and transcendental,” and directly addressed the historian: “I'm already preparing my response to see if we can dissipate your fears!” . This promise of a detailed rebuttal has transformed the policy dispute into a living, closely watched intellectual debate, with global implications for AI governance.

The immediate reaction within Argentina was equally intense, with politicians and technology experts expressing alarm that the proposal could create a regulatory vacuum for powerful, unaccountable systems .

A Fork in the Road for Global AI Governance

This is more than a domestic Argentine policy fight. It is a crystalized version of a dilemma facing every nation. Milei’s approach represents a bet that first-mover advantage in deregulation will drive unprecedented innovation and economic growth. Harari’s counter-argument is a call for a global taboo on AI personhood, an international agreement to keep autonomous systems as legal tools, not legal persons, before the architecture of society is permanently altered .

The world is now waiting for Milei’s promised full response, but the core question Harari has posed—"Should AI ever be granted legal personhood?"—has been forcefully elevated from a niche policy question to the center of the global conversation.