Introducing The Deal of the Century
As in 1946, a handful of individuals hold the rare power to harness the immense risks of a fast-unfolding technology, and an opening political window, to persuade a pragmatic U.S. President to lead an extraordinarily bold global treaty - this time for AI.
Once again a few have an astounding opportunity to make history by building a sane, durable governance of dangerous technologies and other inherently global issues:
The Deal of the Century.
Our AI Predicament: a Fork in History
In recent weeks and months, most leading AI labs - including OpenAI, Musk’s xAI, Zuckerberg's Meta and NVIDIA - have openly declared their intent to build Superintelligence, also referred to as Artificial Super Intelligence or ASI.
Unlike AGI, ASI is a precise term identifying a form of self-improving and ever more powerful AI that is by definition beyond durable human control, with unforeseeable consequences, even human extinction. We have no idea whether such an intelligence would be conscious, and if it were, whether that consciousness would be in a state of suffering or well-being.
Most leading scientists and AI experts now warn—more urgently than ever—of substantial and imminent risks from ASI, including substantial possibility of human extinction (including Altman and Musk) or the irreversible consolidation of global power.
Predicted timelines to a point of no return in the development of ASI are collapsing from decades to just a few years - while some experts and insiders, including Musk and Amodei, predict it could be less than a year.
Most of those same AI leaders—who were once the loudest voices warning of safety risks and calling for global regulation—have understandably grown disillusioned by the total lack of diplomatic action. Now, many are focused on winning the race themselves, hoping to embed their values into the first ASI and trusting that, somehow, things will go well.
The situation is nothing short of unfathomable and mind-boggling; so much so that most state leaders and media have yet to come to terms with it, paralyzed in disbelief and denial.
Paradoxically, at the same time, success in staving off both of those two immense risks would most likely unlock unimaginable benefits for humanity and other sentient beings. These could likely go far beyond great abundance, healthcare and scientific innovation, by possibly helping humans to substantially or radically reduce suffering and unlock human flourishing in unimaginable ways.
Never before has mankind stood so clearly at a fork in history: toward unimaginable triumph or tragedy.
[This post is derived from the Strategic Memo of the The Deal of the Century, a extensive five-months work by the Coalition for a Baruch Plan for AI - to be finalized on September 15th, 2025 - that defines texts and outreach strategies aimed at convincing key potential influencers of Trump's AI policy to champion a bold US-led global AI treaty]
Why Our Future Rests on Trump and Key Influencers
Reportedly, most knowledgeable experts and insiders think a slide towards ASI is just too late and inevitable for the immense market, geopolitical or technological inertia at play, and they are most probably right. Yet, some chances remain that world leaders could act on time.
Given the staggering economic and military forces and stakes at play, only an extraordinarily bold, timely, federal, public-private global AI treaty can take humanity of this race to the brink.
At this stage of the game, such a treaty can only happen if co-lead by the US and China: even a broad and diverse coalition of non-superpower nations would lack sufficient influence, or even be counterproductive by stealing the thunder from Trump.
Currently trailing behind slightly in the race, Xi Jinping has repeatedly called for global AI governance, though without taking concrete steps yet. Hence, if Donald Trump was to publicly declare his willingness to co-lead a serious global treaty process, Xi Jinping would likely follow.
Given growing citizens’ anxiety, and the increasing risks of extreme marginalization of the firms, religious institutions and nations - except for one or two winners - most other nations, non-leading AI labs and religious institutions would also likely join, if they can be assured of reasonable and resilient participation in the decision-making in such treaty-making process and its economic upside.
An in-depth analysis of the psychology, values, actions and statements of Trump, and a key potential influencer shaping his AI policy, suggests that there is a real, if narrow, window of possibility. If Trump could be convinced that a treaty could entrench a substantial US economic advantage, promote his political prospects, and cement his legacy, he could likely decide to co-lead. Under the right alignment of political circumstances and decisive pressure by a critical mass of key influencers of his AI policy, Trump could be swayed.
After deep analysis, we conclude that those with the highest potential to become part of such critical mass of such key influencers are, in order of priority, JD Vance, Sam Altman, Pope Leo XIV, Steve Bannon, aligned by shared Christian metaphysics and humanism, as well as Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, Dario Amodei and possibly Google leaders and David Sacks. Meanwhile, Elon Musk and Peter Thiel may also play a role, but only at a later stage, as Musk had a fallout with Trump and Thiel's transhumanist and extreme technocratic ideas are at odds with other Christian key influencers.
All this may sound improbable today. Most have dismissed such a treaty, not out of opposition, but because they understandably deem it almost impossible.
Yet, something very similar happened before.
In the early months of 1946, as the world reeled from Hiroshima and entered the atomic age, a small circle of trusted experts helped shift U.S. policy from secrecy toward unprecedented global coordination. Robert Oppenheimer, the director of the Manhattan Project; Dean Acheson, the deputy secretary of state with strategic foresight; and Bernard Baruch, Truman’s wartime economic czar — played a key role in persuading President Harry Truman to propose what was, at the time, the boldest treaty proposal in world history: the Baruch Plan, for the exclusive global control of dangerous nuclear technologies.
Today, once again, the responsibility falls on a small, decisive group close to the U.S. president.
In the midst of aligning political circumstances, JD Vance could bring the geopolitical instincts and access of Dean Acheson. Sam Altman could play the dual role of technologist and industrialist — part Oppenheimer, part Baruch. Steve Bannon could play the role of Baruch in translating a bold treaty on AI (which he called for) in approval ratings from the MAGA base.
Given the enormous ethical and existential stakes, the Christian or Catholic worldviews on AI of Vance, Bannon, Carlson and Trump’s base - and Vance's outright recent deferment to the Pope on an overall framing of the future of AI - the newly-elected Pope Leo XIV may also play a crucial role in helping find a common ground with Silicon Valley influencers via an acceptable humanistic form of transhumanism.
Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's director of intelligence, a die-hard fighter against the risks of nuclear conflict, would help make a case from the national security stand. Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson, greatly concerned about the safety risks of AI, could play a key role with Bannon in translating a radical Trump shift on AI policy to its base. David Sacks, Trump's AI and Crypto czar, while currently an AI accelerationist, could align with other influencers to vouch for impact on the US economy, AI labs and donors. As mentioned, Musk and Thiel may or may not play a later supporting role.
In a striking coincidence that could play a surprising role in shaping history, the Baruch Plan was presented to the United Nations on June 14, 1946, barely an hour after Donald Trump was born in Queens, New York.
How They Could Be Swayed
While the stance on AI policy of those influencers are shaped by their power and economic interests, and their statements are not always authentic - on deeper analysis, most appear to be guided even more by philosophical, political, spiritual ideas that are deeply thought-out and coherent, that more a critical mass of them align along core Catholic and, more widely, Judeo-Christian ethics and values.
Just as significantly, their stances on AI are shaped by the evolving probabilities that they assign - explicitly or implicitly, and mostly under deep uncertainty - to a few pivotal AI predictions about ASI and about geopolitical scenarios:
that China will win the ASI race
that ASI will result in human extinction, near-extinction or dystopia
that a proper AI treaty and its treaty enforcement mechanisms will prevent both ASI and authoritarianism
that ASI will be unconscious, or conscious but unhappy
that ASI will discard the values embedded by its original human creators
that an aligned ASI, if created, may have to battle unaligned ASIs
that we live in a (computer) simulation
that their own agency to shape the future is maximized via a proper treaty
After careful analysis, we found that there is considerable room to boost the assigned probability of each influencer in these predictions.
A substantial increase in the probabilities for even one prediction by one influencer could strongly influence their support for a proper AI treaty. This is especially true since some, like Altman, Musk, Bannon, and Pope Francis, have voiced direct support for a strong AI treaty. Their change in opinion on some key AI issues, therefore, wouldn't be a drastic reversal, but rather a tipping of the scales.
A Treaty Enforcement that Prevents ASI and Authoritarianism
While only Thiel, among the key influencers and most nations, has clearly voiced concerns that a global AI treaty could lead to dystopian global authoritarian outcomes - due to the extreme treaty enforcement mechanisms that will be needed to reliably prevent grave misuse or loss of control as AI advances - such concern is likely major reason behind many influencers hesitation to supporting such a treaty. Hence, the design and governance of those mechanisms is key to dispel those concerns.
While it is an impressive feat—and crucial to get right—it is much less difficult than most people assume. A surprising opportunity derives from the fact that (unfortunately) we already live in an extremely dystopian largely-unaccountable global surveillance, with every single person and device spied upon by multiple highly-secretive security agencies, de-facto under a constant intelligence cold war. Bringing such surveillance and oversight activities under a global agency that is resiliently democratically-decentralized and federal, brings an opportunity to substantially increase rather than decrease their transparency and accountability,
Towards Common Ground and a proper AI Treaty
Finding a common ground will mean finding (a) initially an ethical middle ground among those influences between a precautionary Christian humanism and niche but powerful Silicon Valley transhumanism and AI accelerationism, and then (b) a fusion of the Western Christianity and liberal "democracy" with Chinese communist "democracy" and its traditions of Daoism, Confucianism and Buddhism - to set a solid yet evolving shared ethical framework to secure long-term harmony and flourishing of humans and other sentient beings.
Given the dismal track record of past treaties on nuclear weapons and climate change, creating such a treaty requires a "global treaty-making process for safe and fair AI, characterized by unprecedented scope, urgency, and effectiveness" as we detailed in Open Call last December, to succeed where others, including Truman, failed. Perhaps based on the success of the intergovernmental constituent assembly model that led to the 1789 U.S. Constitution, as suggested by Altman in 2023. Such a model would not only be the fastest, time-bound and veto-less, but also create the space for the very intense dialogue needed to converge disparate world views and carefully design an incredibly consequential treaty.
This undertaking would be branded by Trump as the Deal of the Century, and framed as a means to secure U.S. economic leadership while avoiding catastrophe or China domination. Like the Magna Carta, it would enshrine a supranational balance of powers and a recognized role for religious institutions. Like the 1789 U.S. Constitution, it would find common ground on the deepest values of 13 sovereign states - made up of European immigrants adhering to different Christian denominations that were the basis of multiple wars in Europe. And like the Chinese Rites of Zhou or the Tang Code, it would synthesize the moral and civic wisdom of social harmony of different people.
While the treaty would ban the pursuit of ASI, until when and if its outcomes can be confidently deemed beneficial - given the odds of success - some effort should also be dedicated to fostering ways we can increase the chances that ASI will turn out well or just buy us more time to do so - if any can to be found.
Next Steps
Thanks to a $60,000 seed grant from Jaan Tallinn’s Survival and Flourishing Fund, and guidance from advisors and partners, we have been able to conduct a deep analysis of key influencers shaping Trump’s AI policy, and start to develop ad-hoc content and effective outreach measn for each of them. This work is being aggregated in an extensive and highly referenced, The Deal of the Century Strategic Memo, also introduced in this recent 50-minute Introductory Youtube video.
By the end of July 2025, it will be shared in draft form with selected advisors and potential contributors, to be extended, reviewed and deepened. By September 15th, 2025, it will be finalized, and then shared with such influencers and potential introducers to them remotely, and in-person via a tour hosted by our partners in Washington, Mar-a-Lago, Silicon Valley, the Vatican, and possibly Beijing and New Delhi.
