Open Letter to Marco Rubio
[As sent via email on Oct 18th, 2025]
To: US Secretary of State; Chief of Staff of the US Secretary of State
From: Coalition for a Baruch Plan for AI
Subject: Strategic Brief on the Prospects of an US-China-led AI Treaty to Cement US Leadership and Prevent Loss of Control Risk
Dear Mr. Marco Rubio,
I am writing to you as the head of the Coalition for a Baruch Plan for AI, made of 10 NGOs and over 40 multidisciplinary experts (including top former US national security officials) to propose that you lead, alongside President Trump, an age-defining deal on AI with China, The Deal of the Century.
You've stated there's a "high probability" that President Trump and President Xi will meet this year. That meeting—on October 31st and its follow-up in early 2026—could mark the beginning of the most consequential diplomatic achievement since 1946. Or it could be the moment historians identify as when we were locked in catastrophe.
The choice is yours to make.
As Secretary of State, you hold the formal architecture for what could become the Deal of the Century—a US-led global AI treaty that prevents superintelligence catastrophe while cementing American leadership for generations. This is your opportunity to succeed where the deputy Secretary of State Dean Acheson almost succeeded in 1946. The question is whether you'll seize it.
The Diplomatic Reality You Face
Let's be direct about your situation. You're young, ambitious, and Trump has hinted at endorsing you for the 2028 presidential race—though he's also mentioned only Vance, and even floated running for a third term himself. Your portfolio has faced challenges; geopolitical relations have worsened under your watch. You need a legacy-defining win that distinguishes you from Vance and positions you as the strategic mind of this administration.
An AI treaty is that win. It's the foreign policy achievement that eclipses everything else. It's your Marshall Plan, your Camp David Accords, your singular mark on history.
Why This Moment Demands Action
Leading AI labs—OpenAI, xAI, Meta, NVIDIA—are racing toward Artificial Superintelligence (ASI). These are systems that self-improve beyond human control. Their own CEOs assign 10-20% probability to human extinction. Not an accident. Not misuse. Extinction.
A 2024 University of Maryland survey found that 77% of U.S. voters support a strong international AI treaty. As of June 2025, 43% of US citizens are very or somewhat concerned that AI could "cause the end of the human race". As of August, 76% of US voters believe artificial intelligence could eventually pose a threat to the existence of the human race.
China is 18-24 months behind, closing fast. Without coordination, we face an impossible trilemma:
Race to ASI: Maintain competitive advantage but risk losing control of superintelligent systems
Unilateral constraints: Slow down for safety but guarantee Chinese dominance
Coordinated governance: Lead international framework, lock in American advantage while managing existential risk
Only option three can truly serve American interests, if played right. Your job is to make it happen—because no one else can.
The China Calculation
You're a China hawk. Good. So are we. But hawkishness without strategy is just posturing. Here's the strategic reality:
Xi Jinping has repeatedly called for AI governance but won't propose first—it would make China look weak. He's waiting for American leadership. Why?
Domestic stability: Uncontrolled AI disruption threatens CCP control
Economic risk: A race to ASI neither side can control serves no one
International legitimacy: Leading on AI governance enhances China's standing
This is not weakness on your part—it's leverage. By proposing first, after a signed private framework with XI, America sets the terms and narrative. We can have an upper hand in writing the standards, establish the verification protocols, and design the enforcement architecture. China responds to our framework, not vice versa.
You structure the deal so both sides win while humanity gets safety:
US locks in technical advantage and sets global standards
China gains stability and co-leadership role
Both avoid uncontrolled ASI race and catastrophic outcomes
That's not appeasement. That's statecraft.
Your Dean Acheson Moment
In 1946, President Truman faced a similar choice with nuclear weapons. He relied on Deputy Secretary of State Dean Acheson to lead—with scientist Robert Oppenheimer—the groundwork that produced the Baruch Plan - presented to the UN barely one hour after Donald Trump's birth.
The March 1946 Acheson-Lilienthal Report convinced Truman that nuclear proliferation couldn't be stopped unilaterally. That dozens of nations would soon build hydrogen bombs thousands of times more powerful than Hiroshima. That only international control with enforcement power could work.
Acheson didn't draft the report because he was a nuclear physicist. He drafted it because he understood that some threats transcend competitive advantage—and that American leadership on coordination could preserve, not sacrifice, US power.
You're positioned to play that exact role for AI, and succeed by learning from Truman's mistakes. Not merely as an influencer, but as the chief architect of the most important treaty in human history.
Why Traditional Diplomacy Fails
The current approach—incremental dialogues, voluntary frameworks, competitive racing—guarantees failure. We've tried this with climate, cyber, and space. It produces lowest-common-denominator agreements while the race accelerates.
AI is different:
Timeline is compressed (years, not decades)
Stakes are existential (human control and survival)
Technical complexity requires deep coordination
Traditional diplomatic tools are inadequate. You need something bold. Something that matches the scale of the threat.
The Treaty Architecture That Works
Unlike failed climate agreements, and weak nuclear treaties, this treaty must have:
Robust Technical enforcement: Architecture-based compliance, not trust
Clear verification: Measurable commitments on compute, capabilities, testing
Economic incentives: Shared benefits from safe AI development
Distributed governance: Federal structure, not centralized bureaucracy
Our deep 130-page Strategic Memo analysis details specific mechanisms modeled on successful international organizations—CERN, the pre-politicized IAEA, the International Space Station. These work because they're built on technical architecture, not diplomatic promises.
As Secretary of State, you don't need to understand the technical details. You need to understand that experts have solved the verification problem—and your job is to sell the political framework.
The Political Coalition Is Forming
You won't be operating alone. Key Trump advisors are converging on this need:
JD Vance has read the AI 2027 report, takes the risk seriously, defers to Pope Leo XIV for moral guidance
Steve Bannon warns AI brings "the Apocalypse," has called for immediate treaty to prevent technofeudalism
Tulsi Gabbard understands catastrophic risk from her intelligence background and anti-nuclear war advocacy
David Sacks admits thinking "all the time" about losing control of AI
Pope Leo XIV has made AI the defining issue of his papacy, provides moral authority that transcends politics
Altman, Amodei, Hassabis and Musk have been calling loudly for the risk of loss of control and extinction, and called for bold global safety regulation
Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson have been showing deep concerns about AI safety risk
When these voices align, Trump acts. Your role is translating their concerns into diplomatic reality—and positioning yourself as the strategic architect who unified them.
The Political Opportunity
Trump needs a major foreign policy win as economic pressures mount. This treaty offers:
Historic legacy: "Trump prevented the AI apocalypse" rivals anything in presidential history
America First credentials: US-led framework locking in advantages
Bipartisan support: 77% of Americans support strong AI treaty, 78% of Republicans fear AI extinction
International prestige: Positioning US as leader on civilization-defining issue
And here's the kicker—the Baruch Plan was proposed on Trump's birthday in 1946. The symbolic resonance is perfect. You hand him the speech: "On my birthday 79 years ago, America proposed bold international cooperation to prevent nuclear catastrophe. Today, I'm doing the same for AI."
That's the kind of narrative that defines presidencies.
Your 2028 Calculation
You're mentioned as a potential presidential nominee. How you handle this will define your political future.
If you succeed: You're the Secretary of State who helped save humanity and architect American technological leadership. You'll have demonstrated the strategic vision, diplomatic skill, and political courage that defines great presidents. You'll have Trump's endorsement, MAGA base support, and bipartisan credibility.
If you fail: You're the diplomat who watched the greatest catastrophe in human history unfold while foreign policy worsened on your watch. Vance—who already has Trump's ear and succession track—will have the opening to distinguish himself.
The choice is stark. The window is narrow.
What "Weak on China" Really Means
Some will say this makes you look weak in China. They're wrong, and here's why:
Weakness is losing. Weakness is letting China catch up while we race blindly toward systems we can't control. Weakness is ceding the moral and strategic high ground by letting Beijing propose coordination first.
Strength is winning. Strength is using our current advantage to lock in permanent American leadership. Strength is setting the terms of engagement rather than reacting to China's moves. Strength is preventing the catastrophic scenarios where either we lose control or China dominates.
Dean Acheson wasn't weak for proposing the Baruch Plan. He was strategic. The Plan failed not because the idea was wrong, but because the treaty-making process was broken. We've learned from that failure. The Strategic Memo outlines how.
You can be hawkish AND strategic. You can confront China AND coordinate on existential risk. These aren't contradictory—they're complementary. The only question is whether you're smart enough to see it and bold enough to act on it.
The Timeline
October 31st, 2025: Trump meets Xi in Seoul
Early 2026: Follow-up meeting in Beijing
These meetings must shift from competitive posturing to coordinated action. Your pre-meeting preparation needs to include:
Secure consensus among key Trump advisors (Vance, Bannon, Gabbard, Sacks)
Develop detailed treaty framework (Strategic Memo provides foundation)
Coordinate with Chinese counterparts on general principles
Prepare Trump for bold proposal that he can brand as his legacy
October 31st meeting: Validate intent for unprecedented coordination
Early 2026 meeting: Unveil detailed framework for US-China-led global treaty
After early 2026, the window may close. AI capabilities advance faster than anyone predicted. Public concern is rising but could shift to panic or resignation. Political capital is finite.
You have maybe six months to make this happen. Six months to secure your legacy and potentially save civilization.
Why You're the Only One Who Can Do This
Other advisors can advocate. Lab CEOs can provide technical credibility. Vance can bring philosophical depth. Bannon can mobilize the base.
But only you can actually build the treaty. Only you have the formal diplomatic architecture, the State Department resources, the relationships with foreign counterparts, the constitutional authority.
Without you, this doesn't happen. The coalition can form, Trump can be persuaded, but if the Secretary of State doesn't execute, it dies in committee meetings and working groups that produce nothing.
Acheson didn't wait for perfect consensus. He led. He built the framework, convinced Truman, and presented it to the world. You can do the same—if you have the courage.
The Personal Question
I don't know what you believe about God, fate, or destiny. But consider this:
You're Secretary of State at the exact moment when humanity faces its greatest coordination challenge. You're young enough to see the consequences of this decision—whether catastrophe or flourishing. You have the skills, position, and opportunity that come along once in a civilization.
Is this coincidence? Or is this your moment?
In 1946, Dean Acheson was 53 years old—about your age now. He could have played it safe, focused on Soviet containment, let the nuclear issue remain someone else's problem. Instead, he took the biggest swing in diplomatic history.
He failed—but he tried. And that failure taught us what NOT to do. You have the chance to succeed where he couldn't, armed with those lessons and facing even higher stakes.
Will you take the swing? Or will you play it safe while the world burns?
What We're Asking
Review the Strategic Memo — 130 pages of detailed analysis, treaty frameworks, verification mechanisms, and political strategy
Assess whether this serves American interests — not based on ideology, but on strategic calculation
Coordinate with other key advisors building consensus (Vance, Bannon, Gabbard, Sacks)
Develop formal diplomatic architecture for treaty process
Position Trump to make historic proposal at October 31st and early 2026 Xi meetings
This is the diplomatic opportunity of your career—possibly the most consequential treaty negotiation in human history.
The Strategic Memo contains:
Detailed treaty architecture and enforcement mechanisms
Analysis of how to persuade each key Trump advisor
Technical solutions that prevent both ASI and authoritarianism
Historical precedents and lessons from 1946 Baruch Plan
Specific diplomatic language and protocols
We're ready to brief you confidentially. We have technical experts, strategic advisors, and access to key influencers. But we need the Secretary of State to turn strategy into reality.
History Is Watching
On June 14, 1946—the day Trump was born—Bernard Baruch stood before the UN to propose international control of nuclear technology. It was bold. It was unprecedented. It nearly worked.
79 years later, history is giving us a second chance. Same challenge, higher stakes, better tools. The question is whether we're wise enough to seize it.
Your name will be remembered. The question is how. As the strategist who secured American leadership and prevented catastrophe? Or as the diplomat who watched helplessly while civilization faced its greatest test?
Dean Acheson took his swing and missed. You can take yours and connect.
The window is six months. The choice is yours.
About Us
The Coalition consists of 10 international NGOs and 40 exceptional multidisciplinary advisors, team, board and secretariat members, including former top officials from WEF, NSA, UBS, UN, Yale and Princeton, and led by Rufo Guerreschi. The Coalition is also backed by leading NGOs and experts that supported our Open Calls, reports or advocacy seminars.
We are in a US Persuasion Tour that will take us to meet those Trump's AI influencers, and introducers to them. We'll be in the Bay Area (Oct 5-21), Washington, D.C. (Oct 21-24), the Vatican (Nov 5-20), Washington, D.C. (Dec 2-14), and Mar-a-Lago Area (Dec 16-22).
Main References
Strategic Memo for The Deal of the Century (Sep 24th, 2025)
Open Letters and Emails for Trump's AI influencers (Oct, 2025)
We invite you to review specific sections of the Memo:
17 Reasons Why Trump Could Be Persuaded (pp. 36-39)
A Treaty-Making Process that Can Succeed (pp. 18-24)
A Treaty Enforcement that Prevents both ASI and Authoritarianism (pp. 24-27)
Analysis of how several unsuspected potential Trump's AI influencers are much closer than you might think to join a critical mass to persuade Trump of a global AI treaty (pp. 40-55).
Analysis of the possible re-evaluation of deeply uncertain and competing risks by key potential influencers of Trump's AI policy (pp. 15-17 and pp. 84-91)
Our Ask
We are asking you and your team to review our proposal, and engage with other potential influencers to explore this unmatched opportunity. We'd be glad to meet you or your relevant staff in Washington DC (October 21-24th or December 2-14th) or in Mar-a-Lago Area (Dec 16-22).
Warm Regards,
The Coalition for a Baruch Plan for AI