The United States is poised to force its allies to choose a side in the AI cold war.

      Washington is getting ready to issue its partners an ultimatum that is quite direct. As reported by Reuters, a draft letter from the State Department indicates that the US will inform allied nations they must choose between the American and Chinese artificial intelligence ecosystems, as membership in both will no longer be possible.

      This letter is directed at the 35 countries that endorsed the "AI Opportunity Statement" in June, and its wording is notably harsh for a diplomatic document. It states, “To be part of everything is to be part of nothing.” The draft further emphasizes that signing the Pax Silica Declaration involves a commitment, not just a simple subscription to membership.

      The initiative at play is Pax Silica, which was introduced last year to secure supply chains for AI models, semiconductors, and essential minerals. The incentive is access to shared AI investment opportunities available solely to members, while the deterrent is exclusion for any nation that also aligns with China’s competing framework. This situation presents leverage disguised as a form of club membership.

      So far, about two dozen countries, including Japan, Australia, and South Korea, have joined. Only one nation, Kazakhstan, is currently involved in both the American and Chinese coalitions, a fact that is less surprising when considering its significant resources of the desired critical minerals.

      This complicated overlap—having connections to both camps—is exactly what the letter aims to eliminate, potentially putting Kazakhstan's current position at risk. A US official articulated the reasoning clearly: “It’s difficult to see how a country can credibly position themselves as trusted partners in one technology ecosystem while simultaneously signing up for an initiative designed by China to advance a competing vision for AI.” Implicitly, neutrality is perceived by Washington as a form of defection.

      The timing of this move appears intentional. Affordable Chinese open-weight models have been steadily penetrating the market that was once dominated by proprietary American systems, and a low-cost Chinese model is now closely competing with Anthropic and OpenAI in cost and capabilities. As the commercial advantage diminishes, geopolitics starts to seem like an appealing alternative.

      In response, China is no longer on the defense. In July, Xi Jinping launched a competing “World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization,” explicitly centered around open-weight technology and open to all interested parties. It serves as a direct counter to Pax Silica, promoting its openness as a key attraction. Moreover, Beijing is considering restrictions on foreign access to its top models, indicating its growing sense of leverage.

      For those who have witnessed the past decade, this scenario may feel reminiscent. This resembles the Huawei-era 5G pressure campaign, reformatted for large language models, with allies once again being asked to choose one vendor over another.

      Not everyone in Silicon Valley supports this approach. Mark Zuckerberg has suggested that the US should not block Chinese AI models at all, arguing that such bans tend to backfire.

      Europe, unsurprisingly, finds itself caught in the middle. The bloc has spent years advocating for “strategic autonomy,” a diplomatic way of saying it does not want to have to choose between Washington and Beijing. Being presented with a signature line and instructed to take a side is precisely the situation it sought to avoid, and the draft letter allows little room for maneuver.

      The State Department, for its part, declined to comment on what it referred to as “purportedly leaked internal documents,” a diplomatic way of acknowledging little while denying nothing.

      The letter may still be revised before being sent out, but the overall direction is evident: the AI cold war has subtly included a loyalty test, signaling that for America’s partners, the era of cautious neutrality is coming to an end.