A window for a bold and proper AI treaty window is just opening wide.

We have been laser-focused on making it go well since December 2024.

Trump and Xi have launched formal AI talks, with Shenzhen next. The leading labs are asking to slow down. Capabilities, fears and accidents are all accelerating — and one serious incident could turn talks into a treaty sprint, overnight and amid chaos.

When it comes, success will depend on what was prepared before: ideas already vetted, a coalition of wise US AI power brokers already in the room, and channels both sides already trust. Since December 2024, that is what we build.

356-page Strategic Memo · 150 pages of AI power-broker profiles · 95+ advisors and staff of US AI power brokers engaged · $7,500/mo burn-rate

Since December 2024

On December 18, 2024, a month before the inauguration, we launched with an Open Call that opened with these three lines:

"We call on all heads of state, President-Elect Trump and President Xi, and their advisors and security agencies, to engage in an open global treaty-making process for safe and fair AI of radically unprecedented scope, urgency and effectiveness.

We stand on the brink of an irreversible slide toward AIs that are capable enough to subjugate or annihilate humanity or enable a state or firm to do so.

While the leading US and Chinese AI scientists warned that catastrophic risks of AI for human safety could materialize in a few years, or even 'at any time,' an immense AI-driven concentration of power and wealth is unfolding."

Twenty-one months later, in the Oval Office, Xi told Trump that "AI must be kept under human control."

February 2025: we narrowed

We were founded on multilateralism — NGOs and willing states building momentum from below. By February 2025 the evidence pointed one way. Xi had long signaled readiness. The bottleneck was Washington: one President, and the dozen people who shape his AI policy. We reorganized everything around them.

What we built

For nearly two years we have assembled assets that, as far as we know, no other organization holds in one place:

• Treaty-process knowledge. A 356-page Strategic Memo (667+ sources, 24 contributors) and its v2.9 update on the technical and constituent challenges of a treaty of this scope: verification and enforcement, secure diplomatic infrastructure, treaty-making models, sequencing from bilateral to global, safeguards against capture.

• Power-broker intelligence. 150 pages of profiles of the officials, lab leaders, media, political and religious figures who shape Trump's AI policy — including their own stated predictions about AI.

• A network one step from the decision. 95+ advisors, staff and envoys engaged — and over 30 hours with senior staff who report directly to four of those power brokers.

• Deep roots. Since 2015, our director has led pioneering work on verifiable, trustworthy IT and its international governance — via the Trustless Computing Association, its TRUSTLESS.AI spin-off and the Free and Safe in Cyberspace series.

Where we stand

We are for a treaty — not any treaty. Our compass is closest to Anthropic's: take catastrophic risk extremely seriously, keep AI's benefits within reach, distrust premature and rigid rules, and prevent any human power grab. Anthropic's Institute warns that "without a global coordination mechanism, companies and governments will have to make difficult decisions about safety while under competitive and geopolitical pressures." Jack Clark recalls that Washington and Moscow "found ways to talk to one another about nuclear weapons" — "The same can be done here." When Dario Amodei wrote that "global pacing will require cooperation with China," we agreed. We work where a lab cannot. We are independent of any lab's commercial interest, reach conservative-humanist and national-security circles, and are free to say plainly that only a US-China-led process gets signed.

The gap we fill

The AI-safety community and its philanthropies — Coefficient Giving above all — have funded a world-class body of safety science and brought AI's catastrophic risks into public debate. Far less has gone into the arena that now decides: the President who will shape AI policy until at least January 2029, and the dozen people he listens to. Others made that bet early. Nvidia's Jensen Huang puts Trump on speakerphone at tech summits. Alumni of Peter Thiel's network hold key tech-policy posts (Memo v2.6). Both reaped outsized returns. We fill that gap, at a fraction of the cost — with one test for every step: could it fuel a treaty in the wrong direction? If so, we don't take it.

Preparedness beats prediction

Nobody knows whether the window opens at Shenzhen, after the next incident, or not at all. But if it opens, the President will turn to the people already in the room — today, those who call the risks a "hoax." Left there, a treaty becomes a market-access deal with safety language bolted on. Relationships, trust and shelf-ready plans cannot be bought on demand in a crisis. They are built before. And if no window opens, they still pay off: in better protocols, better domestic policy and a US position that holds.

Our role in the months ahead

Bold AI treaty preparedness. A treaty-making process could open at Shenzhen, at the G20 in Doral, or after the next major AI incident. When it does, the President and his power brokers will need a plan they can jointly accept, that scales fast in incremental steps — and that China could plausibly accept too. Which steps come first? What triggers the next? What channels and infrastructure make each step verifiable? What safeguards make scaling safe? How do we weigh AI's possible moral status? We help them find that common ground before the window opens, not after.

What it costs

$7,500 a month. One full-time director, a small paid team, no offices. Our constraint is not access but bandwidth: warm channels to the AI-policy leads of four power brokers, and too few hands to follow up. About $140,000 raised since 2024 from AI-safety funders and scientists, plus 1,700+ hours of professional volunteering. Donate · Join

Why "Baruch Plan"? In 1946 the US proposed international control of all dangerous nuclear technology. It failed. We keep the name for one reason — scope. Nothing smaller than that ambition matches AI, even if the world must get there step by step, at a wartime pace. Jack Clark of Anthropic and Yoshua Bengio have invoked it too. More →

Where to go next

• The Deal of the Century — what we propose, and why it must start small and scale fast. Start here to judge whether we're right.

• DC Roundtables — closed-door sessions where power brokers' delegates look for common ground. Start here if you might attend, or know who should.

• Achievements · Roadmap — what we've done on a shoestring, and what funding unlocks next.