The shoe is most certainly on the other foot. On Monday, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman reportedly declared a “code red” at the company to improve ChatGPT, delaying advertising plans and other products in the process,  The Information reported based on a leaked internal memo. The move follows Google’s release of its Gemini 3 model last month, which has outperformed ChatGPT on some industry benchmark tests and sparked high-profile praise on social media.

In the memo, Altman wrote, “We are at a critical time for ChatGPT.” The company will push back work on advertising integration, AI agents for health and shopping, and a personal assistant feature called Pulse. Altman encouraged temporary team transfers and established daily calls for employees responsible for enhancing the chatbot.

The directive creates an odd symmetry with events from December 2022, when Google management declared its own “code red” internal emergency after ChatGPT launched and rapidly gained in popularity. At the time, Google CEO Sundar Pichai reassigned teams across the company to develop AI prototypes and products to compete with OpenAI’s chatbot. Now, three years later, the AI industry is in a very different place.

Read full article

Comments

There’s never been such a thing as being “too competitive” when it comes to competition. This is something that [Tom Stanton] from “Tim Station”, [Tom]’s 2nd channel, took to heart for Polymaker’s 3D design challenge. The goal was simple: a single 3D printed part to hold as much weight as possible.

While seemingly simple, when considering the requirements, including a single print in addition to being able to open up for the mounts, the challenge gets exponentially more complicated. While the simplest and strongest joint would be a simple oval for uniform stress, this isn’t possible when considering the opening requirements. This creates a need for slightly more creativity.

[Tom] starts out with two flat C-shaped geometries to test his design. The design includes teeth specially placed to allow the forces to increase their own strength as force is applied. Flat features have the unfortunate quality of being able to slide across each other rather easily, which was the case during testing; however, the actual structures held up rather well. Moving onto the final design, including a hollow cavity and a much thicker depth, showed good promise early on in the competition, leading up to the finals. In fact, the design won out over anything else, getting over double the max strength of the runner up. Over an entire metric ton, the piece of plastic proved its abilities far past anything us here at Hackaday would expect from a small piece of PLA.

Design can be an absolute rabbit hole when it comes to even the simplest of things, as shown with this competition. [Tom] clearly showed some personal passion for this project; however, if you haven’t had the chance to dive this deep into CADing, keep sure to try out something like TinkerCAD to get your feet wet. TinkerCAD started out simple as can be but has exploded into quite the formidable suite!

Researchers submitted 107 bug reports during the bugSWAT hacking event at the ESCAL8 conference in New Mexico.

The post Google Paid Out $458,000 at Live Hacking Event appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Mate 70 Air takes on iPhone Air at nearly half the price, with a 7-inch OLED, 6,500 mAh battery, and 66W charging. Launching first in China.

The post Huawei’s Mate 70 Air Takes Aim at Apple’s iPhone Air — for Half the Price appeared first on TechRepublic.

EXPERT PERSPECTIVE -- In the middle of the night, with no witnesses, a single ship flagged out of Hong Kong drags its anchor across the Baltic Sea. In silence, it severs a vital gas pipeline and the digital cables that link northern capitals. By morning, millions lose connectivity, financial transactions stall, and energy grids flicker on the edge.

The culprit vanishes behind flags of convenience, leaving blame circulating in diplomatic circles while Moscow and others look on, exploiting maritime ambiguity and the vulnerabilities of Europe's lifelines.

Meanwhile, in Warsaw and Vilnius, shoppers flee as flames engulf two of the largest city malls. Investigators soon discover the arsonists are teenagers recruited online, guided by encrypted messages, and paid by actors connected to hostile state agencies. The chaos sows fear, erodes social trust, and sends shockwaves through European communities—proxy sabotage that destabilizes societies while providing plausible deniability to those orchestrating the acts.

Thousands of kilometers away, Chinese dredgers and coast guard vessels silently transform disputed reefs into fortified islands in the South China Sea. With no declaration of war and no pitched battles, new airstrips and bases appear, steadily shifting maritime boundaries and economic interests. Each construction project redraws the strategic realities of an entire region, forcing neighbors and distant powers alike to reckon with incremental, shadowy coercion and efforts to change the status quo.

In early 2024, Chinese state-sponsored hackers, known as "Volt Typhoon," penetrated U.S data repositories and embedded themselves deep within the control systems of U.S. critical infrastructure, including communication networks, energy grids, and water treatment facilities.

Then-FBI Director Christopher Wray described it as a pre-positioning of capabilities by China that can be turned on whenever Beijing wanted - wreaking havoc and causing real-world harm to American citizens and communities. China has denied any connection to these attacks on U.S. sovereignty.

And just weeks ago, around 20 Russian drones violated Poland’s airspace. Russia’s denials were predictable and since then, Russian drones and jets have violated airspace in Romania, Estonia, and over the Baltic Sea.

Were these threats, tests of capability and resolve, provocations, or demonstrations—or maybe all of the above? Just as NATO will develop a set of lessons-learned for future incursions, it’s also likely that Russia learned from these episodes and will recalibrate future incursions.

Threaded almost invisibly through all of these gray zone activities, and countless others like them, is cognitive warfare—a persistent tool of our adversaries. It is an assault on cognition. The information and decision spaces are flooded with weaponized narratives, AI-powered disinformation, synthetic realities, and the coercive use of redlines and intimidation.

The goal is clear—deceive, change how we see the world, fracture societies, destroy faith in institutions and partnerships, erode trust, challenge and replace knowledge and belief, coerce and intimidate; and perhaps most importantly; undermine decision autonomy. It is here, in the crowded intersection of AI; cyber; traditional tools such as narratives and storytelling; and cognition; that today’s most urgent battles are fought.

These are all operations in the gray zone. We all use somewhat different terms for this, but let me share the definition of the gray zone that I think works well.

The gray zone is the geopolitical space between peace and war where adversaries work to advance their own national interests while attacking and undermining the interests of their adversaries and setting the conditions for a future war without triggering a military response.

We might refer to attacks in the gray zone as gray warfare. It is the domain of ambiguity, deniability, and incremental aggression calculated to limit deterrence and discourage persuasive response.

The 2026 Cipher Brief HONORS Awards are open for nominations. Find out more at www.cipherbriefhonors.com

Today, it is the space where global competition, particularly great power competition, is playing out.

Why are we seeing more gray zone activity today?

First, great power competition is intensifying. This includes great powers, middle powers, and impacts almost every other nation. Almost every nation has a role to play, even if involuntary: competitor, ally and supporter, enabler, spoiler, surrogate, or innocent bystander and victim. Like the African proverb says, “When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.”

But great powers will go to great lengths to avoid 21^st Century superpower conflict, primarily because of the fear of unintended losses and damage to national power that could take decades to recover. The catastrophic damage to nations and militaries from WWII are distant—but still vivid—reminders of the impact of a war of great powers.

Today, just look at the unprecedented loss of national power by Russia in indirect superpower conflict. Superpower conflict has consequences. Given these strategic considerations, the gray zone and gray warfare provide an effective strategic alternative to conventional war. Our adversaries have calculated that there are more gains than risks in the gray zone, and that any risks they do face are acceptable.

Second, technology levels the playing field, creating new opportunities for gray zone attacks. Cyberattacks, even those that are disrupted, lead to more effective cyber capabilities by our adversaries. AI-driven cognitive warfare now delivers persuasive content with unprecedented global access and immediacy. Small kinetic drones can be wielded by state and non-state actors to pose both kinetic and cognitive threats. Technology also enables adversaries to conceal their operations and increase non-attribution. Even simple technologies have the potential to generate strategic effects in the gray zone.

Third, surrogates and proxies offer expanded reach, ambiguity, and impact

Little Green Men, hired criminals, ghost ships, unknown assassins and saboteurs, and shadowy companies that help evade sanctions blur attribution, providing bad actors with a veneer of deniability while increasing their reach, impact, and lethality. On a broader scale, Houthi attacks on global shipping and North Korean soldiers fighting Ukraine elevate the effects of this ambiguous warfare to a higher level. This trend is likely to intensify in the future.

Fourth, it is important to address the direct impacts of Russia’s war on Ukraine on an increase in gray zone attacks. Russia’s significant loss of national power and limited battlefield gains have created pressure on the Kremlin to reassert relevance, project power, and potentially punish antagonists. This dynamic almost certainly means a continued escalation of gray zone activities targeting Europe and aimed at destabilizing the continent. Many experts believe the Baltics and the Balkans may be particularly vulnerable.

That Russian gray bullseye is crowded—the U.S. is also a traditional target, and more Russia activity to undermine and weaken the U.S. is coming, despite Putin’s offers of renewed diplomatic and economic cooperation.

Finally, there are more gray zone attacks because real deterrence and persuasive responses to gray attacks are challenging, and our adversaries know it. In other words, gray zone attacks in most cases are relatively low cost, often effective, provide a level of deniability, and frustrate efforts at deterrence and response.

Our adversaries have calculated that they can hide behind ambiguity and deniability to violate sovereignty, ignore national laws and international norms, and engage in activities such as political coercion, sabotage, and even assassinations without triggering an armed response.

This “no limits” approach exploits the openness, legal norms, and ethical standards of democratic societies, making coordinated, timely, and effective response more difficult.

So, what can we do?

The most important outcome of our actions is to change the risk calculation of our adversaries. Gray zone attacks that go unanswered reward our adversaries and reinforce the idea that there are more gains than risk in the gray zone and encourage more attacks. Further, our adversaries calculate, often accurately, that our reasonable concerns for avoiding escalation will lead to indecision, weak responses, or the acceptance of false choices.

We need improved and shared gray zone intelligence to see through the fog of disinformation, synthetic realities, false risks and threats, and an overload of information by our adversaries to understand what is taking place in the gray zone. This not only strengthens our operations to counter gray zone attacks but it helps our citizens, communities, and countries to understand, recognize, reject, and remain resilient in the face of gray zone attacks.

We have to employ “strategic daylighting” to expose and put into context the gray zone activity by our adversaries—stripping away deniability and laying bare nefarious and illegal actions—knowing that our adversaries will go to great lengths to conceal, defend, and attack our efforts to expose their activities.

We have to speak frankly and convincingly to our adversaries and of course, we have to back up our words with persuasive action. Empty warnings and rhetoric will fall short. Changing the risk calculation of our adversaries means real consequences across a broad spectrum—public, diplomatic, economic, legal, informational, or even kinetic. It means a strategy on how to respond - not just a series of hasty responses. Real deterrence will result from planning and strategy; not decisions in the moment based on immediate circumstances.

Finally, we need to think of deterrence and response as a team sport - an “Article 5 mindset.” Our adversaries will seek to divide and isolate. Collective, unified action and resolve can form a powerful deterrent.

Of course, none of this is new. All of us need a solid understanding of the problems and the likely best solutions and implementation remains the greatest challenge.

We can go a long way with a good strategy, good partners, and resolve which seems like a reasonable place to start.

This Cipher Brief expert perspective by Dave Pitts is adapted from a speech he recently delivered in Sarajevo. Comments have been lightly edited for clarity. All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed are my own and do not reflect the official positions or views of the US Government. Nothing in my remarks should be construed as asserting or implying US Government authentication of information or endorsement.

The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals.

Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.

Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to Editor@thecipherbrief.com for publication consideration.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief

EXPERT PERSPECTIVE — In 1943, a body washed up on a beach in Huelva, Spain. It was the body of a Royal Marine officer, Major William Martin. Martin was carrying papers, cuffed to his wrist in a briefcase, suggesting that the Allies would invade Greece and Sardinia, not Sicily. Spain was officially neutral, but a few Spanish officials sympathetic to the Nazis allowed German agents to discreetly photograph the documents before Spain quietly passed the documents to the British. Those British officials appeared to be in a state of panic over the lost briefcase.

Would this opportunistic espionage expose a critical Allied operation? In reality, Major William Martin never existed. The body was that of Glyndwr (“Glendure”) Michael, a Welsh drifter who died from consuming rat poison. You probably recognize this as Operation Mincemeat. British intelligence developed this incredible ruse, with American approval, and painstakingly developed a plan for the body to wash up near Huelva Spain and provided background and a personal story for Michael that allowed the body to pass convincingly as a Royal Martine officer who perished at sea while delivering sensitive documents.

The Germans took the bait. Convinced by this fabricated narrative, Hitler diverted significant forces away from Sicily. When the Allies landed in Sicily, they encountered far less resistance than expected, saving countless lives and accelerating the collapse of Axis defenses in southern Europe.

Beyond innovation and sheer audacity, this was a master class in story-telling, in knowing the pressures facing the target audience (Hitler), in creating a believable altered reality, in understanding how information moved through Nazi circles and among those who enabled them and, most importantly, in persuading our adversaries to make consequential decisions that advanced our interests over theirs. It was cognitive warfare on the offense, it represented a cognitive advantage during a perilous period, and it remains a reminder of the timeless power of cognitive persuasion.

History has many other examples of where commanders and leaders have stepped beyond traditional thinking and conventional operations into the information and cognitive space to confuse our adversaries, to win the day, and, at times, to change history.

Is this important today? Let us put cognitive warfare in strategic perspective.

First, great power competition is intensifying and the stakes are high.

The U.S is now facing the most significant global challenges than at any time in our history. We face more capable peer adversaries, more aspiring regional nations, and more proxy threats than ever before. The global environment is more uncertain than ever, and our place in it is not guaranteed. If we are to remain the global leader, we’ll have to be ready for today’s and tomorrow’s rapidly evolving competition and warfare. We must look to prioritize and commonly orient our Nation’s capabilities toward actively maneuvering and gaining advantage across the cognitive landscape to help ensure our security interests, and to actively deny any adversary their own advantage.

Second, great powers will go to great lengths to avoid direct military engagement that could have catastrophic consequences. Russia has lost the equivalent of what would be one of the world’s largest militaries and it has experienced a massive reduction in national power in the war with Ukraine. We also know the examples from WWII when nations and great militaries were defeated and even decimated as a result of great power conflict.

China has advocated winning without fighting for decades, and it still does. Khrushchev famously said “We will take American without firing a shot. We do not have to invade the U.S. We will destroy you from within.” Putin is a believer and practitioner in that approach.

Their approaches are not a mystery. Our adversaries have telegraphed how they plan to attack us, and to defeat us, without direct military engagement.

Third, given those considerations, our adversaries are increasingly relying on operations in the gray zone, or gray warfare, to advance their national interests and to take steps to undermine and weaken the United States, without risking a superpower conflict. They have prioritized their resources, decisions, and actions toward this end.

China and Russia, and even Iran and North Korea, believe there are more gains than risks in the gray zone, and any risks they do face are manageable, so we should expect them to expand their activities. If we solely maintain an unblinking stare at the conventional military capabilities of our adversaries, we might miss the real war already well underway in the gray zone.

Finally—cognitive warfare stands as the most prevalent and consequential activity our adversaries conduct in the gray zone.

This is not your grandfather’s Cold War disinformation. This is an assault on cognition, powered by advanced technology and enabled by an information environment that provides camouflage, infrastructure, and operational resources for our adversaries. Ultimately, cognitive warfare is a contest for truth and knowledge—a struggle to shape perception, control understanding, and influence both the decision-making process and its outcomes.

The Cipher Brief brings expert-level context to national and global security stories. It’s never been more important to understand what’s happening in the world. Upgrade your access to exclusive content by becoming a subscriber.

Never before in history have individuals, organizations, societies, and nations faced such a sustained assault on our ability to make our own decisions—our autonomy to think, decide, and act in our own best interests. From our adversaries’ perspective, controlling perceptions, manufacturing realities, steering decision-making, intimidation as persuasion, decision fatigue, and manufactured false choices make for persuasive and effective strategy.

In this global information landscape, where technology levels the playing field, any individual or group, and state or non-state actors can reach global audiences almost immediately. Thousands of internet sites, fake users, fabricated organizations, bots, and willing surrogates, managed by Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, wage cognitive warfare against the U.S., our allies, and our partners at unprecedented scale and velocity. Artificial intelligence now serves as a force multiplier—amplifying reach, supercharging deception, automating the manipulation of public opinion, and constricting time in the information maneuver space.

As individuals and groups within America, this is everything from how we see the world, how we vote, how we invest, whom and what we trust, which policies we support or oppose, and who we believe are our friends and partners—locally, regionally, and globally.

For national security leaders, policymakers, and corporate and military decision-makers, our adversaries seek to influence consequential decisions on issues like Ukraine, Taiwan, trade, military posture, supply chains, alliances, participation in international organizations, technology development, and a host of other issues that could tip the balance in our adversaries’ favor.

For China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, this is integrated national strategy where the instruments of national power—government, private sector, and surrogates—are combined to achieve strategic impact. Further, the willingness of our adversaries to defy international law; challenge economic interests, and violate the sovereignty and laws of every country including the U.S.; engage in bribery, political coercion, sabotage, and assassinations—essentially a “no limits” approach” to cognitive warfare—gives them considerable leverage—made more effective by our lack of focused emphasis on recognizing, prioritizing and taking action to mass and commonly orient our great national strengths.

If we are to make consequential decisions with confidence, we must have high certainty in the information we receive, value, and share. In the cognitive domain, truth is a strategic asset—precious, powerful, and fragile. To endure, it must be shielded from the relentless assault of manipulation, coercion, and altered realities initiated by our adversaries to shape the strategic landscape and create influence attack vectors intended to undermine and disable our ability to do the same.

Churchill recognized both the strategic value and fragile nature of truth in a time of conflict. He famously said, “In wartime, the truth [is] so precious that it should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” The lesson is clear. Today, just as in 1943, we must seize and defend the cognitive advantage if we are to navigate these equally perilous times.

What do we need to do to achieve a cognitive advantage?

- First, we need to reassert a strong U.S. national narrative.

In the cognitive domain, our national narrative is both sword and shield. It projects power, influence, and advances our interests. It tells the story of our values, our history, our aspirations, our view of the world, and our resolve and is reinforced by actions and deeds. Our military and economic strength and our global leaderships are strong parts of this narrative. It supports confidence in our actions, our institutions, and our commitments. It also counters adversary narratives and actions that seek to undermine America within our own borders and across the world. We all know today that our national narrative is being questioned by some at home and abroad. Regardless of how we see the political environment, we must articulate and advance a strong seamless U.S. national narrative as foundational to a cognitive advantage. We must take this on.

- Second, we need to empower our master storytellers.

Our master storytellers are not just communicators; they are architects of persuasion. We all know this; we read, we watch movies, and we listen. Facts are fleeting, but stories remain with us—they shape how we feel which in turn drives how we behave. In the cognitive domain, well-crafted stories—including those tailored to navigate today’s hyper-technical environment and chaotic information environment—shape threat perceptions, influence our perception of reality, sustain resolve, and can tip the balance in competition or conflict.

Adversaries recognize the power of narrative and weaponize it; even the truth is more persuasive when it is delivered as part of a compelling story. History proves the advantage: in cognitive warfare, facts alone rarely shift outcomes—compelling narratives and persuasive storytelling do. As in 1943, our edge will be defined by those who can craft and deliver the stories that influence minds and shape events. Yes, we need our master storytellers as much today as we did in 1943.

- Third, we need to see and understand our adversaries’ capabilities and intentions in the cognitive domain—where perception, knowledge, and decision-making are contested. Our adversaries, of course, go to great lengths to mask and conceal their activities. It is time for cognitive intelligence—intelligence in and about the cognitive domain and our ability to reliably understand how, where, and why adversaries seek to shape our thinking and decisions—to emerge as a priority.

- Fourth, we need a sustain a technological edge in AI, Cognitive Science, Cyber, and other technologies that force our adversaries to go on the defensive. China in particular is working to take that advantage from us by its own means but also by stealing U.S. data, technologies, and intellectual property to use against us. We must safeguard the extraordinary capabilities of U.S. technologies—including those small, bold startups—that not only provide a critical national security advantage but are also relentlessly targeted by our adversaries.

- Fifth—and critically important—we need to plan, organize and drive designed strategies and actions across our governmental institutions, international partners, and private sector at the intersections of shared security interests to defend against adversary tactics that target our economic, military, infrastructure, informational and Cyber pillars of security each fueled by human perception, reasoning, and effective decision-making. If you remember anything from this article, please remember this. As a priority, we need a strategy and a commitment to play offense in a quiet but relentless manner that confuses our adversaries, shatters their confidence, and forces them—not us—to deal with the uncertainties of cognitive warfare.

- Finally, if all of this is to work, we need to harness the incredible intellectual power, critical thinking, and collaboration among government, private sector, academia, and in many cases, our allies. We need to work at the nexus of shared interests. In this collaboration; we need leaders; not to overly prescribe or to build bureaucracy, but to inspire, convene, add clarity of purpose, and to enable the incredible capability this community offers. We must use the power to convene to commonly inform and set conditions for mutually beneficial action and outcomes, and to help close the relationship seams used by our adversaries as attack vectors.

Need a daily dose of reality on national and global security issues? Subscriber to The Cipher Brief’s Nightcap newsletter, delivering expert insights on today’s events – right to your inbox. Sign up for free today.

For our leaders, a reminder that when relegated to small tasks and small thinking, influence operations in the cognitive domain will achieve small results. This is a time for vision, for big thoughts, innovation, and audacity. With those attributes, and thinking back to the remarkable achievements of 1943, today’s operations in the cognitive domain can and will do remarkable things.

Those elements, we believe, are the foundation of a cognitive advantage. If we are successful, it means we have a sustained ability to protect our decision-making autonomy at all levels; we preserve domestic and allied social cohesion; we retain global influence, credibility and narrative power; we expose and undermine adversary efforts at cognitive warfare; and we achieve U.S. objectives without resulting in direct conflict. Challenging?—Yes. Attainable?—Certainly.

A final word. Last June, Dave Pitts visited Normandy for the 80^th Anniversary of D-Day—which was our last conventional war of great powers. It was a war that resulted in a devastating loss of human life and unprecedented destruction. Omaha Beach, the Drop Zones around St. Mere Eglise, and the American Cemetery were vivid reminders. That war established the U.S as a global superpower and established a world order that has lasted 80 years. It also enshrined in history the “Greatest Generation.”

Today, authoritarian rule is on the rise, national sovereignty around the world is being undermined, and the global order as we know it is under attack. Once again, our preeminence, leadership, and resolve are being challenged. Let’s be clear, the next war—a quieter war, a gray war—is already underway. The outcome of that war will be as consequential as conventional war.

Cognitive warfare may very well be the defining contest of this era—a generational challenge—given the threats it poses to U.S. national security, our place and influence in the world, and our commitment to our own self-determination. If you are a professional in this space—government, private sector, academia, and ally—this is clearly your time.

Today, we are surrounded by threats, but we are also surrounded by opportunities, by extraordinary expertise, and by willing partners. The challenges ahead are formidable, but so are our experiences and capabilities as a nation. The incredible resolve, sacrifice, and refusal to fail—hallmarks of the Greatest Generation—are woven into the fabric of America and will continue to serve us well. Securing our future now demands leadership, collaboration, a bias for action, and adaptability—the hallmarks of this generation. We have what it takes.

Yes, confidence is clearly justified—but we must just as clearly match that confidence with decisive action. Time is not on our side as others have already decided to prioritize cognitive related strategies. It is time to take a bold step forward in the cognitive domain and to seize the cognitive advantage.

All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official positions or views of the U.S. Government. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying U.S. Government authentication of information or endorsement of the author's views.

The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals.

Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.

Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to Editor@thecipherbrief.com for publication consideration.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief

OPINION — Last month, the White House released its AI Action Plan, followed by an Executive Order aimed at promoting the export of the “American AI technology stack.” These actions come six months after Chinese startup DeepSeek surprise launched its highly capable, open source AI model and undercut confidence in American AI superiority over China.

Taken together, the White House’s approach doubles down on a “race to achieve global dominance in artificial intelligence,” while recognizing that to win this race we need broad global adoption of U.S. AI technology. But it appears the United States has not fully absorbed the lesson of DeepSeek for global technology competition.

Leading U.S. AI companies continue to tout their superior sophistication. But during my time at the White House and State Department promoting U.S. cyber and tech abroad, I observed that most countries aren't looking for the world's most advanced AI. They want AI that’s good enough to meet basic needs and is compatible with their existing systems. They’re looking for simple, turn-key solutions. DeepSeek allows China to provide that – and edge out American companies in dozens of countries.

In acknowledging the need for a “full stack” strategy, the White House has taken an important first step in supporting U.S. industry. But success will rely on whether policymakers can shift their focus away from the most glamorous, frontier tech, and devote energy and resources to a more holistic approach. To reclaim global AI leadership, the United States must become a one-stop-shop for the digital infrastructure AI relies on.

Why the Full Stack Matters

The most advanced AI companies still depend upon basic tech infrastructure, known as the digital stack, to deliver their services to the public. These include subsea cables, data centers, telecommunications, and satellites. Long before leading proprietary models like ChatGPT and Claude entered the picture, the United States and China competed to provide that digital foundation to developing countries.

Typically, American companies offer superior, more secure technology at higher prices than Chinese counterparts, who rely on state subsidies and decades of intellectual property theft to keep costs low. But China’s other comparative advantage has been its integrated solutions: Huawei bundles 5G with other offerings, like cloud services in Egypt or cybersecurity training in Indonesia, which comprehensively address developing countries’ needs. Often, countries decide that cost efficiency and the convenience of a package deal outweigh the risks of Chinese technology, like spying, authoritarian propaganda, and the threat of technology shutdowns as a tool of Chinese government coercion.

With DeepSeek's R1, the Chinese package now offers a powerful open-source large language model to customers already reliant on Chinese systems. For these countries, DeepSeek may be good enough to suit their needs; moreover, it doesn’t require the purchase of more trustworthy and costly digital infrastructure necessary to safely run more advanced American models.

China winning the AI race in the developing world brings significant risk for U.S. tech and commercial leadership as well as national security. Broad adoption of Chinese technology would give Chinese companies – and by extension the Chinese government – vast troves of data and favorable market access, with potential economic, political, and military advantages.

Moreover, as countries’ critical infrastructure - such as power grids, telecom networks, and ports - becomes reliant on Chinese technology, they become more vulnerable to Chinese coercion on matters of security, sovereignty, and trade. China is already using this influence to shape policy norms and technical standards for AI use around the world; it could also become a point of leverage for trade deals, critical mineral access, and port access, as we’ve seen with traditional infrastructure projects.

Sign up for the Cyber Initiatives Group Sunday newsletter, delivering expert-level insights on the cyber and tech stories of the day – directly to your inbox. Sign up for the CIG newsletter today.

Building a “Full Stack” Strategy that Meets the Moment

Despite these challenges, the United States still has advantages. Most countries prefer the quality and security of U.S. technology, including our leading AI models. But we need smart policies and an affirmative vision to effectively compete. Previous efforts have suffered from lack of follow-through, and relevant agencies will struggle with understaffing and uncertain resourcing in critical areas.

Last month’s Executive Order provides a good starting point; but as is so often the case, implementation will be the test. The executive order lays out a long missing mechanism for structured coordination between the federal government and U.S. technology companies, whose size, scale, and reach provide crucial advantages as we compete on the global stage – advantages that should be taken into consideration even as we review competition policies at home.

The order also references resources to level the playing field against unfairly advantaged Chinese competitors. Well-timed cybersecurity support, strategic loans from the Development Finance Corporation, access to planned undersea cable buildouts, and foreign assistance can be vital tools for advancing a trusted U.S. tech ecosystem. But these mechanisms can only succeed if the Administration signals to Congress that appropriately resourcing them is vital to advance U.S. interests – a prospect that is unclear at the moment.

Finally, we need to organize cyber, digital, and technology diplomacy as an integrated mission across government to support U.S. business. Last month’s order affirms the role of the Economic Diplomacy Action Group (EDAG) chaired by the Secretary of State to fill this function. But the Secretary of State’s dual role as National Security Advisor means limited bandwidth to carry forward this effort, and the State Department recently laid off many of its AI and technology experts and reorganized its cyber bureau.

A meaningful path forward will require agencies, especially the State Department, to address these gaps either through new hires or rehires, and delegate EDAG leadership to an official with the bandwidth and authority to coordinate disparate efforts across the government.

American AI leadership depends not just on recognizing the need for a “full stack” strategy, but meaningfully executing. If we can truly prioritize digital infrastructure as a foundational necessity for adoption of U.S. AI tech, we can meet this pivotal moment.

The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals.

Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.

Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to Editor@thecipherbrief.com for publication consideration.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief

By Gary Miliefsky, Publisher of Cyber Defense Magazine Black Hat, the cybersecurity industry’s most established and in-depth security event series, has once again proven why it remains the go-to gathering...

The post Black Hat USA 2025 – AI, Innovation, and the Power of the Cybersecurity Community appeared first on Cyber Defense Magazine.