The emergence of high-level artificial intelligence (AI) technology has caused the United States and China to safeguard their resources in a race to develop the most powerful systems.
A tense relationship is developing between the two world powers, as the Biden Administration announced it would limit Chinese tech investments in semiconductors, quantum computing and AI.
This move subsequently sparked concerns from regulators in other countries, with lawmakers in the United Kingdom and the European Union considering their next move in response to the U.S. action.
The U.S. guards AI and other tech
On Aug. 9, The White House released two executive notes about AI developments in full or in part. The first outlined a new opportunity for hackers to compete for monetary compensation by using AI to help secure U.S. infrastructure from cybersecurity vulnerabilities.
However, the second defined China, Hong Kong and Macau as a “country of concern.” It stated the U.S. would regulate investments in such countries and sectors that “covered national security technologies and products.”
This included semiconductors, which are often used in the development of AI, microelectronics and quantum information technologies. It deemed these sectors “critical for the military, intelligence, surveillance, or cyber-enabled capabilities of a country of concern.”
The document read:
“Rapid advancement in semiconductors and microelectronics, quantum information technologies, and artificial intelligence capabilities by these countries significantly enhances their ability to conduct activities that threaten the national security of the United States.“
Currently, only the countries mentioned above were included in the note, though in a remark to Reuters, a Biden administration official said other countries could be added in the future.
In October 2022, U.S. regulators placed bans on the export of semiconductor chips to China, which are needed to create high-powered AI systems, and have since expressed the desire to further restrict their availability.
China responds to tech spat with the U.S.
China immediately responded to the announcement from the Biden administration in a statement via the official channel of the Chinese Embassy in the United States.
The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson said it “strongly deplores and firmly opposes” the “single-minded” decisions of the U.S. on its investments in China. It said such a move politicizes business engagement and “overstretches” security concepts.
“This is blatant economic coercion and tech bullying, an act that seriously violates the principles of market economy and fair competition…”
The statement continued, calling the move “de-globalization” and an effort to phase China out of the scene.
China said it will follow the developments closely and will work in favor of its rights.
In response to previous U.S. measures around restricting AI technologies, China announced it would be tightening its controls on the export of AI chip-making materials.
In an Aug. 10 report from the Financial Times, sources close to the matter said that China’s internet giants, including Baidu, ByteDance, Tencent and Alibaba, have all made billion-dollar orders of Nvidia A800 processors in fears of even tighter controls from the United States.
The EU and U.K. consider the recent restrictions
Biden’s action against China immediately sparked responses from regulators overseas.
On Aug. 10, a spokesperson from the office of U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the new orders clarify the U.S. position and the U.K. will consider the measures as it continues to “assess potential national security risks attached to some investments.“
Sunak and Biden signed an agreement to strengthen their alliance in June, which included deepening ties in areas such as advanced technologies like AI.
The European Commission made a statement on the same day, saying it would also analyze the U.S. decision.
Sir Keir Starmer has said he will defend the decisions made in the budget “all day long” amid anger from farmers over inheritance tax changes.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced last month in her key speech that from April 2026, farms worth more than £1m will face an inheritance tax rate of 20%, rather than the standard 40% applied to other land and property.
The announcement has sparked anger among farmers who argue this will mean higher food prices, lower food production and having to sell off land to pay for the tax.
Sir Keir defended the budget as he gave his first speech as prime minister at the Welsh Labour conference in Llandudno, North Wales, where farmers have been holding a tractor protest outside.
Sir Keir admitted: “We’ve taken some extremely tough decisions on tax.”
He said: “I will defend facing up to the harsh light of fiscal reality. I will defend the tough decisions that were necessary to stabilise our economy.
“And I will defend protecting the payslips of working people, fixing the foundations of our economy, and investing in the future of Britain and the future of Wales. Finally, turning the page on austerity once and for all.”
He also said the budget allocation for Wales was a “record figure” – some £21bn for next year – an extra £1.7bn through the Barnett Formula, as he hailed a “path of change” with Labour governments in Wales and Westminster.
And he confirmed a £160m investment zone in Wrexham and Flintshire will be going live in 2025.
Advertisement
‘PM should have addressed the protesters’
Among the hundreds of farmers demonstrating was Gareth Wyn Jones, who told Sky News it was “disrespectful” that the prime minister did not mention farmers in his speech.
He said “so many people have come here to air their frustrations. He (Starmer) had an opportunity to address the crowd. Even if he was booed he should have been man enough to come out and talk to the people”.
He said farmers planned to deliver Sir Keir a letter which begins with “‘don’t bite the hand that feeds you”.
Mr Wyn Jones told Sky News the government was “destroying” an industry that was already struggling.
“They’re destroying an industry that’s already on its knees and struggling, absolutely struggling, mentally, emotionally and physically. We need government support not more hindrance so we can produce food to feed the nation.”
He said inheritance tax changes will result in farmers increasing the price of food: “The poorer people in society aren’t going to be able to afford good, healthy, nutritious British food, so we have to push this to government for them to understand that enough is enough, the farmers can’t take any more of what they’re throwing at us.”
Mr Wyn Jones disputed the government’s estimation that only 500 farming estates in the UK will be affected by the inheritance tax changes.
“Look, a lot of farmers in this country are in their 70s and 80s, they haven’t handed their farms down because that’s the way it’s always been, they’ve always known there was never going to be inheritance tax.”
On Friday, Sir Keir addressed farmers’ concerns, saying: “I know some farmers are anxious about the inheritance tax rules that we brought in two weeks ago.
“What I would say about that is, once you add the £1m for the farmland to the £1m that is exempt for your spouse, for most couples with a farm wanting to hand on to their children, it’s £3m before anybody pays a penny in inheritance tax.”
Ministers said the move will not affect small farms and is aimed at targeting wealthy landowners who buy up farmland to avoid paying inheritance tax.
But analysis this week said a typical family farm would have to put 159% of annual profits into paying the new inheritance tax every year for a decade and could have to sell 20% of their land.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The Country and Land Business Association (CLA), which represents owners of rural land, property and businesses in England and Wales, found a typical 200-acre farm owned by one person with an expected profit of £27,300 would face a £435,000 inheritance tax bill.
The plan says families can spread the inheritance tax payments over 10 years, but the CLA found this would require an average farm to allocate 159% of its profits each year for a decade.
To pay that, successors could be forced to sell 20% of their land, the analysis found.