Foreign Policy

With the U.S. no longer the world’s sole hegemon, how will the next president manage the shifting global order? Experts from around the world have written their advice for the next White House—and the American people—in FP’s latest print issue. Read it here:

Despite deep divisions and polarization, leaders of both parties should agree that bolstering clean energy production in the U.S. and in partner countries around the world is in America’s economic and security interests, columnist Jason Bordoff writes in FP's latest print issue.

This politicization of the military is harmful to the candidates and the republic—it damages the military’s status as a nonpartisan institution that will support civilian control no matter who wins the presidency, writes Peter D. Feaver.

A fresh start may be top of mind as voters in Sri Lanka select their next president, Michael Kugelman writes.

As Washington devotes funds to develop new industries to facilitate the green transition, it must make funds and technology available to developing countries and emerging markets, Joseph E. Stiglitz writes.

Republicans are divided on China, but one debate hangs above all the rest: what the end goal of U.S.-China competition should be, or whether the United States should even articulate one, FP’s Lili Pike reports.

Jane Harman and Eric S. Edelman, the chair and vice chair of the Commission on the National Defense Strategy, found that the U.S. national security strategy is woefully out of date and insufficient to address urgent threats.

As technology continues to evolve and give rise to artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, and quantum technologies, Western democratic nations must lead technological innovations to shape our security environment. If we don’t, others will, Mircea Geoana writes.

If the United States does not comply with ICC and ICJ rulings regarding Israel, international legal institutions will lose their authority, to the detriment of the United States itself, Sarah Leah Whitson argues.

As the United Nations General Assembly kicks off, my latest op-ed in Foreign Policy provides a few perspectives on how and why to include the global majority in the AI Safety and Security conversation. Last month my role as a U.S. Department of State Science Envoy took me to Fiji, where I met with regional government leaders, academics, indigenous leaders and more. I came away with new friends, a newfound love for soursop, and a refreshed perspective on the value and imperative of global majority inclusion. I offer two main insights in this piece: - Responsible, secure, and privacy-preserving AI by design should be our collective priority. Frequently, AI-native leaders focus solely on enhancing digital access and capability. As investments are made to develop infrastructure and capacity in global- majority nations, equal investment must be made to bolster those investments with the tools we now wish we had when we built the technologies. - However, we need to recognize that the resources of the global majority often differ from those of the AI superpowers. We should support the development of regional AI safety institutes. These institutes could consolidate resources, develop local expertise, and advocate for the needs of global- majority nations in future AI governance discussions. HumaneIntelligence has some big announcements coming up on how we will be contributing to solving these issues. I hope this op Ed sets a guided tone for the UNGA rooms over the next weeks and drives positive and fruitful collaboration.