The White House hosted a summit on artificial intelligence last month, to discuss how the US government might use AI to improve its services. The US is not alone; many governments see AI as key to their future growth and development. These officials understand that AI systems could improve welfare, increase productivity and help solve complex problems such as global warming. But countries won’t be able to reap the benefits of AI unless they work internationally, as well as domestically, to create an effective enabling environment for AI, an internationally accepted system of norms to govern both data and AI, and adopt policies to discourage anti-competitive behaviour. The US should be leading this effort because it holds a large share of the global market for AI services. However, it is sending mixed messages. AI is generally used to describe computer systems that can sense their environment, think, learn and act in ways that humans do. AI applications use computational analysis of data to uncover patterns and draw inferences. To “train” these systems, AI applications utilise huge volumes of data that is supposed to be high quality, up to date, complete and correct, to ensure accuracy and avoid discrimination. Because of this huge and growing demand for training data, no nation alone can govern AI without interoperable policies to govern data, as well as hold firms to account for their potential misuse of data. America and China’s data giants achieved an early lead in acquiring such information, which in turn made it easier for them to capture a large share of the global market for AI. Yet the Trump administration approach to governing AI is contradictory. On one hand, officials have worked to develop ethical guidelines , sought public comment on America’s AI strategy and proposed greater funding for AI research. Federal officials are examining if any US data giants engaged in anti-competitive practices, and the Federal Trade Commission has imposed fines against some firms. Trump officials also plan to improve public systems by ensuring public data (held by the government) is open and generally available in a form that computer systems can easily utilise. Ethics and the pursuit of artificial intelligence Moreover, trade policymakers have included language in the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement to encourage both the free flow of data and to produce public data in a machine-readable format. They are also asking important questions. The US Patent Office recently called for public comments on patenting AI. But the US is also taking steps at the national level that undermine the global benefits of AI. First, it does not have a national law protecting personal data and the Trump administration has done little to link such a law to its AI plans. As a result, the US has yet to create an effective enabling environment for AI. Moreover, the Trump administration has promoted a nationalist conception of AI, emphasising its role as a military technology and its importance to national security. The administration is also working on adopting new export controls related to AI by the end of the year, it announced recently. Restrictions on work and student visas reduces the already limited pool of AI researchers in the US. Moreover, Trump officials have restricted federally funded labs from working with foreign students or benefiting from foreign funding. Taken in sum, these strategies could undermine basic research in AI, hurting the US and others. US universities need clear rules against commercial espionage The Trump administration has taken important international steps such as working with 41 other countries at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development on an international agreement for building trustworthy artificial intelligence. But taken together, its actions send a message that America is less interested in cooperation than domination. In contrast, the EU has signalled that it views AI development as a global good. Like the US, the 27 nations of the European Union have increased funding and published a road map to achieve trustworthy AI . The EU also uses trade agreements to promote the free flow of data, which allow its researchers to gain access to larger pools of personal and public data. European agencies have levied heavy fines against firms that engage in uncompetitive business practices. Society needs a higher quality debate on data privacy Most importantly, the EU has adopted regulations to ensure personal data is protected and has granted users greater control over their data. Firms can’t rely on AI to make decisions that could affect human rights and must explain how AI systems make decisions, if asked. Other countries have emulated this approach, including Brazil, India and Indonesia. The EU has recognised 12 countries as having equivalent (or adequate) levels of personal data protection. Many nations strive to be judged as adequate, to freely trade data with and from EU citizens. In short, the EU’s internationalist and trustworthy approach is gaining converts. Like the EU, the US wants to create trusted AI systems. But its approach is nationalistic, and risks the international network of research, talent and capital that fuels AI. If the US wants to encourage continued innovation and trust in firms using AI, policymakers should remember that leadership abroad begins at home. Susan Ariel Aaronson is a professor at George Washington University, director of its Digital Trade and Data Governance Hub and a senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation