After decades of reading national security documents — from Pentagon guidance to intelligence briefings — I have learned a simple truth: the most dangerous policy papers are rarely the ones that say too much. They are the ones that move quickly past what matters most. The White House’s national AI legislative framework, released on March 20, belongs in that second category.

At first glance, it is exactly what many hoped for: bold, confident, and unapologetically committed to American leadership in artificial intelligence. In a world where China is racing to dominate this technology, that posture is not only understandable — competing against Beijing requires it. The administration gets several things genuinely right. It recognizes the urgent need to protect children from exploitation in AI systems, takes steps to combat AI-generated impersonation and fraud, raises legitimate concerns about government pressure on technology companies to suppress lawful speech, and squarely acknowledges the economic and national security stakes of falling behind. These are substantive commitments.

A closer reading unsettles that picture. The framework is weighted heavily toward accelerating innovation and sweeping away regulatory obstacles — particularly at the state level — while offering far less clarity on how the rights of citizens will be protected in an AI-driven society. For Christians and all who value ordered liberty, that is not a minor omission. It is a structural vulnerability with consequences that will compound quietly until they cannot be reversed.

In “AI for Mankind's Future,” I argued that artificial intelligence introduces a profound tension with democratic self-government. Systems that analyze, predict, and increasingly decide on our behalf can quietly displace human judgment, erode accountability, and concentrate power in ways that are difficult to see and even harder to challenge. The proper response is not to halt innovation, but to anchor it within a framework that protects human dignity, responsibility, and freedom — and on that test, this framework falls short.

The framework’s most consequential provision is the push to override many state-level AI laws. The stated goal — eliminating a confusing patchwork of regulations — has real merit; 50 separate compliance regimes would impose genuine burdens on developers. But removing those guardrails without erecting strong federal protections creates something more dangerous than fragmentation. The resulting vacuum will be filled — by powerful AI systems, by large technology firms, and by government agencies eager to use tools that promise efficiency without accountability. More than 50 Republican lawmakers have already raised that alarm, warning in a letter to the White House that efforts to halt state AI legislation risk shielding the tech industry from meaningful oversight. That warning deserves serious attention from the administration and from Congress.

In “The New AI Cold War,” I argue that the defining struggle of this century is not simply about which nation builds the most advanced AI — it is about who governs it, and whether human beings remain in control. A nation can win the technological race and still lose its soul if decision-making authority drifts from accountable institutions into opaque systems and unaccountable corporate structures. This framework, in its current form, accelerates that drift rather than checking it.

The framework says little about due process when AI systems are used in hiring, lending, policing, or national security decisions. It does not meaningfully address algorithmic discrimination. It offers limited guidance on transparency or explainability — whether citizens have any right to understand decisions that affect their lives. And it does not establish clear lines of liability when AI systems cause harm. These gaps are not technical footnotes; they are the front lines of freedom in the digital age, and leaving them unaddressed is a choice, not an oversight.

A government that protects speech but neglects due process has not secured liberty. A nation that champions innovation while sidelining accountability risks empowering systems no one fully controls. A society that prizes efficiency above all else will eventually reduce human beings — created in the image of God — to inputs in a machine, measured only by what they produce and predicted to do next.

Scripture speaks directly to this temptation. In Genesis 11, humanity set out to build a tower that would centralize power and elevate human achievement above divine authority. It was not ignorance that drove them — it was confidence. They believed they could build something great enough to govern themselves without limits. God intervened before they could find out how wrong they were. Today’s artificial intelligence carries the same ambition, only with far greater capability: to consolidate knowledge, decision-making, and control in ways that bypass moral limits and human accountability. The materials have improved. The impulse has not.

None of this is an argument against AI. Used wisely, it can advance medicine, strengthen national defense, improve public services, and contribute to human flourishing. But the technology is not neutral — it reflects the values of those who design and deploy it. When those values prioritize speed, scale, and dominance above truth, dignity, and accountability, what emerges is not progress. It is distortion wearing the mask of progress.

Christians — pastors, parents, policymakers, and citizens — cannot afford to leave this debate to technologists and lobbyists. This is a question of authority, responsibility, and the future of human agency, and the church has a direct stake in how it is answered. We should support efforts to ensure America leads in AI. We should welcome protections for children and safeguards against deception. But we must also insist — clearly and forcefully — that any national AI policy include what this framework largely omits: strong privacy protections, clear due process rights, transparency in automated decision-making, enforceable safeguards against algorithmic discrimination, and independent oversight that holds both government and corporations accountable to the people they serve.

Speak to your representatives. Demand that Congress strengthen this framework before it becomes the foundation of a system that will be very difficult to unwind.

Above all, we must reject the growing assumption that machines can — or should — replace human moral judgment. Artificial intelligence can process information, but it cannot bear responsibility; it can optimize outcomes, but it has no capacity to discern right from wrong. That responsibility remains uniquely human, and ultimately accountable to God.

America should win the AI race. But winning will require more than speed or spending. Proverbs 4:7 commands: “Get wisdom; though it cost all you have, get understanding.” Once these systems are embedded in our economy, our government, and our daily lives, the window to shape them will close quickly. If we pursue power without wisdom — if we build systems we cannot govern — we will not simply risk losing our freedoms. We will have engineered their replacement.