White House Advisor Highlights Sovereignty Risks in Global AI Superintelligence Ban

White House Senior Policy Advisor for AI, Sriram Krishnan, has voiced significant concerns regarding the feasibility and implications of a proposed global ban on artificial intelligence superintelligence. Krishnan, referencing AI commentator Dean Ball's insights, underscored the immense practical and geopolitical challenges inherent in establishing such a moratorium, particularly concerning national sovereignty and the creation of a powerful international oversight body. His comments come amidst growing calls from prominent figures for stricter AI regulation.

The discussion follows a recent open letter, issued on October 22, 2025, by the Future of Life Institute (FLI), advocating for a worldwide prohibition on developing AI superintelligence until its safety and controllability are scientifically proven and publicly accepted. This letter, signed by over 800 public figures including technology leaders and AI pioneers, marks an escalation from previous calls for temporary pauses in advanced AI development. Signatories expressed fears of existential threats, economic disruption, and loss of human control.

Krishnan articulated his skepticism regarding the practical implementation of such a ban, stating in a recent social media post, > "when people say we should 'pause AI' they mean (a) all major countries should agree and hold up their end of the bargain (b) there will probably need to be some global enforcement authority to hold countries accountable to this." He further elaborated on the potential for this to lead to "a global organization with near unchecked power that the people who want to stop AI will then try and staff or other countries will try to influence to have power over the US's sovereignty."

As a co-author of the American AI Action Plan released in July 2025, Krishnan has been instrumental in shaping U.S. AI policy, which emphasizes American leadership in AI innovation and global proliferation of American AI models. His perspective highlights the tension between international regulatory aspirations and national interests. Dean Ball, whose analysis Krishnan cited, has frequently examined the complexities of AI governance, advocating for "sane regulations" and navigating the intricate landscape of state-level legislative efforts rather than broad, potentially unenforceable prohibitions.

The debate underscores the profound challenges in governing rapidly advancing AI technology. While proponents of a ban emphasize the urgent need to mitigate catastrophic risks, critics like Krishnan point to the intricate geopolitical realities and the potential for new forms of global power structures that could emerge from attempts at universal enforcement. The path forward for AI governance remains a complex negotiation between innovation, safety, and national autonomy.