Strategic Memo 3.0 Preview - Executive Summary

Produced by:   Coalition for a Baruch Plan for AI
Main author:   Rufo Guerreschi
Date:   June 14th, 2026

The Deal of the Century is a research and advocacy initiative — by a coalition of 10 international NGOs, 20 advisors, and 24 contributors — aimed at facilitating the convergence of a critical mass of humanist key potential influencers of Trump's AI policy to successfully pitch him to pursue:

• (1) a bold, timely and proper US-China-led AI safety treaty-making process; and

• (2) a treaty-backed mechanism for the durable sharing of AI power and wealth by individual citizens. 

At the Coalition for a Baruch Plan for AI, we regularly update a 356-page Strategic Memo of the Deal of the Century, including an in-depth feasibility analysis and over 150 pages of tailored analysis of such influencers. 

We regularly advocate remotely and in-person to those influencers, their key staff, advisors and envoys, or introducers to them — mostly in DC and the Bay Area. 

We do so via one-to-one advocacy based on the memo, informing them of the surprising alignment among influencers of core AI governance issues — and facilitating debate, pursuit of  win-wins, of middle ground and compromise.  

On September 15–16, 2026, we'll host, with local partners in DC, the first of a series of closed-door roundtables, The Cooperation of Statesmen on AI.

Main targets of our high-precision advocacy include US officials (including Kratsios, Rubio, Vance, Bessent, and Wiles); political and media figures (including Bannon, Carlson, Beck, DeSantis and Rogan); and AI lab leaders (including Amodei, Altman, Hassabis, Musk and Sutskever).

One Pager

Given the extreme global concentration of AI power, President Xi's consistent calls for global AI governance, and ever-shorter ASI timelines, President Trump's AI policy decisions in the coming months will determine the future of humanity more than any decision in history.

A seemingly unstoppable race to Artificial Superintelligence is forcing humanity toward a three-way fork leading to starkly different futures:

• (1) a loss of control to AI, resulting in human extinction or ASI-led utopia;

• (2) a deeply entrenched and durable global authoritarian regime; or

• (3) a safe and flourishing future for humans and other sentient beings secured by a bold, timely, and well-designed AI treaty. 

An immense consolidation of power and wealth is fast accruing in a few centi-billionaires and two Presidents — likely to achieve biological or digital immortality — threatening to radically marginalize everyone else, politically and economically.

Neither the US nor China can win such a race — it ends in nuclear conflict or loss of human control — yet work on the bold international treaty that alone can prevent it has barely started to come up in the radar of world leaders.

Until three weeks ago, the President's AI policy was firmly dominated by an ultra-libertarian, hands-off, and post-humanist stance on the race to ASI. It was largely inspired and imposed by Peter Thiel and operationalized by WH officials historically very close to him (Sacks, Krishnan, and partly Kratsios, Helberg, Vance) and tacitly backed by roughly half of top AI lab leaders (Huang, Zuckerberg and perhaps Page and Brin).

Since the inauguration, Peter Thiel has exhausted nearly all of his political capital vehemently cautioning against the creation of an AI safety treaty body. He argues such a body would inevitably produce a permanent, dystopic global autocracy — a real and crucial risk, largely overlooked by AI-safety proponents and deeply shared by most humanist lab leaders. 

Yet Thiel's position is internally inconsistent: He fails to acknowledge that leaving AI largely unregulated, as he suggests, would almost certainly result in a global oligarchy or authoritarian state, provided it does not lead to human extinction—an outcome he seems remarkably unconcerned about. Ironically, he remains one of the figures most strategically placed to benefit from such a role in that unregulated future.

Yet, this approach has been for years highly minoritarian among citizens, influencers and other powerbrokers.

By now,  63% of US voters believe it's likely that "humans won't be able to control it anymore," 53% believe "AI will destroy humanity" is somewhat or very likely, and 77% of them support a strong international AI treaty.  Most key potential influencers of Trump’s AI policy (unknowingly to each other) are increasingly concerned or calling for a treaty in one way or another — including Bannon, Carlson, Rogan, and most leaders of frontier labs (Altman, Amodei, Hassabis, and Suleyman), and partly Sacks and Musk. Others, like Rubio and Gabbard, are likely to join for conviction and political expediency.

Furthermore, Trump is far from this radical ideology, he is the ultimate pragmatic politician. Xi has repeatedly called for global AI governance.  Four Trump-Xi summits are planned for 2026, starting in May. Trump's approval ratings have been consistently low, in the thirties. This political liability can be turned into the opportunity of a lifetime. 

Finally, in the span of a few weeks, in May-June 2026, Thiel's faction lost a huge amount of ground, with the influence of his network decreasing rapidly — while a consensus rising at an astonishing pace among key US AI policy influencers and powerbrokers around shared and proper solutions to prevent immense AI safety and concentration of power risks.

What's missing is a push to catalyze this potential into a powerful informal alliance — one that makes a successful pitch to Trump for a coherent new US AI policy, while addressing head-on Thiel's concentration-of-power concerns, deeply shared by top AI lab leaders.

Not Just Any Treaty and Treaty-Making Process

A bad AI treaty and treaty-making process would be worse than none and perceived so by most of those key potential influencers. Persuading a critical mass of them to decisively act and pitch Trump requires a treaty-making process that is very well thought out.

Many humanist top AI lab leaders increasingly think that an ASI gamble may be less risky than a global governance of AI that may result in: failing to prevent the emergence of ASI, entrenching an authoritarian dystopia, foreclosing astounding prospects of AI-driven flourishing, failing to mitigate other mounting existential risks and/or producing immense suffering of non-human biological and non-biological conscious beings. 

Therefore, the treaty-making process must be designed to durably prevent ASI and serious misuse, lessen concentration of power and wealth, increase accountability and competence, and sustainably leave room for future flourishing, autonomy, and private innovation. This is under the guiding principles of an open but cautious humanism.

It must also be comprehensive in scope from inception — for the verification economics detailed under Phase 1: narrowing scope trades real safety for illusory political simplicity.

In our Strategic Memo v2.6 (pp. 124-139), we detail how and why a US-China-led treaty (while led by two "strong executive" leaders and requiring extensive surveillance to reliably prevent ASI) can be made to substantially reduce concentration of power — and why It is most likely to do so given certain inherent foreseeable dynamics.

An Actionable Path Towards a Proper Treaty

How likely is it that a proper treaty-making process (toward a proper treaty) will be the outcome of the coordinated action of well-meaning humanist powerbrokers of US AI policy?

The belief of those top AI lab leaders in the feasibility of proper global AI governance wavers and stays weak — confirmed by how they let their calls for global coordination be drowned out by the marketing they use to prop up valuations and IPOs.

We identified an actionable path to such a proper treaty that can succeed at convincing humanist AI lab leaders and the President to decisively act to realize both:

1. A bold, timely and proper US-China-led AI safety treaty-making process; and 

2. A treaty-backed, durable sharing of AI power and wealth by individual citizens. 

Let's look at both in fine detail.

A US-China-led Global AI Safety Treaty. 

Given the urgency and the scope of the necessary treaty and the infrastructure needed to reliably enforce them, the treaty will necessarily need to be developed in stages. 

Phase 1. An Initial US-China Emergency Treaty 

A progressive, multistep, initial US-China emergency safety and national security treaty to seriously and effectively mitigate the fullest set of imminent AI risks in the cyber, biological/chemical, and nuclear domains. 

Framed as the "cooperation of statesmen" that Trump's OSTP director Kratsios called for at the UN Security Council — the same bilateral-first approach Secretary of War Stimson proposed to Truman in September 1945 for nuclear technologies, which could have saved the Baruch Plan for international control of nuclear weapons if Truman agreed to it. 

While China has so far called for a UN-based process while advancing a Shanghai-based new AI international institution, it bodes well that when Xi called for nuclear disarmament it recognized that “the two nuclear weapon States with the largest nuclear arsenals should take the lead in nuclear disarmament”.

While core and public negotiations will be US-China bilateral, outside a UN treaty-making process, which Trump rightly distrusts, intense backchannel negotiations for a treaty and industrial alignment will be maintained with aligned and like-minded countries — as proposed by Amodei in his last essay — as part of a constructive competition with China 

In our vision, Trump and Xi should start by fast-tracking a temporary, emergency bilateral treaty covering as much as possible all those risks that are easy to enforce, gravest or most imminent, such as: AI-augmented biological and chemical threats, AI integration into nuclear command, AI-enabled cyberattacks against critical infrastructure, large-scale manipulation, and the prevention of loss-of-control pathways such as recursive self-improvement, self-replication, and uninterpretable autonomous reasoning.

For risks where the underlying science remains genuinely scientifically or politically contested (e.g., the precise capability threshold at which recursive self-improvement becomes irreversible, or the conditions under which alignment-faking becomes detectable), the treaty will build the enforcement mechanism to be switched on as needed but will include a suspension clause. As proposed by the "if-then commitments" (Karnofsky), "conditional treaty" (Barten) and "radical optionality" (Winter & Bullock), binding terms whose enforcement triggers activate only once a joint US-China-led scientific assessment panel determines, by supermajority, that the risk is ripe to be regulated. This converts scientific uncertainty from a reason to defer governance into a structured pathway for governance to keep pace with capability.

Furthermore, it should be considered that tackling these one at a time is not meaningfully easier than tackling them together. The reciprocal verification machinery — compute thresholds, model evaluation protocols, training-run audits, third-party inspection of AI facilities — is the same regardless of which risk category it serves. Once that architecture exists, extending its scope is a marginal cost. The dominant cost — the establishment governance, scientific and technical mechanisms for a mutually-trustworthy AI verification regime — is paid once.

Concurrently with the negotiation of such an initial deal, Xi and Trump should launch a sort of "global Apollo Program of AI diplomacy and treaty-governance infrastructure" to jointly build — at wartime speed and with very substantial resources — a mutually-trusted socio-technical infrastructure for (1) ultra-high-bandwidth diplomatic communications and (2) trustworthy treaty enforcement mechanisms that maximize accountability, subsidiarity, and checks and balances. The correct and substantial participation to such process by other superpowers, superpowers' security agencies, top AI labs, independent experts and citizen representative organizations, and religious leaders is crucial to ensure its success.

Phase 2. Towards a Proper Global AI Treaty

Midway through Phase 1, the US and China will also frame and jump-start a treaty-making process for a permanent global AI treaty that will ensure sufficient global voluntary compliance to safety bans by middle powers, prevent conflicts deriving from fears of global AI duopoly via fair AI power and wealth sharing among citizens and nations. 

Given the plausibility of extremely short ASI timelines, the profundity, and complexity of the decisions, and the need to stave off veto-based negotiations,the process will likely need to be based on a time-constrained constitutional convention model, but adjusted to GDP for geopolitical realism and to future-proof US and China economic leadership.

They will negotiate with most middle powers the scope and rules of a global treaty-making process for AI based on the constitutional convention model. This model—inspired by the 1787 US Constitutional Convention, as suggested by Sam Altman in 2023—is the only one that can prevent the fatal use of the veto, succeed in delivering an extremely wide-scoped and fair treaty in short and predictable times, and ensure resilient subsidiarity terms. The model will be amended to be realistic: voting will initially be weighted by GDP to secure and future-proof US and China leadership while still preventing a global duopoly.

Substantial functional roles should be granted to world religious traditions, security agencies, top AI labs, independent AI scientists, and citizen assemblies — ideally especially within the US and China — to ensure the necessary moral authority, scientific knowledge, operational expertise, and democratic legitimacy that the scope of this treaty demands.

A Treaty-enforced Citizen Co-ownership of Leading AI/Robotics Firms. 

Yet even a perfect AI safety treaty would do nothing to stop AI's wealth and power from accruing in one or few centi-billionaires, or one superpower leader.  

A resilient policy is also needed to ensure a durable, sizable and well-governed citizens' sharing of the enormous wealth and power AI will create. 

For many years, business and political leaders have been proposing radical solutions in the form of European-style AI wealth redistributive schemes based on taxation or Universal Basic Income. Presidential candidate Andrew Yang made UBI central to his campaign. Altman advocated and invested in testing the idea. Musk recently took it a step ahead coining the term Universal High-Income, to refer to the fact that AI abundance would likely be truly great and so afford opulence for all. In 2024, Amodei criticized Universal Basic Income as not enough as it would amount to a handout, leaving citizens without agency warnings and proposals. 

Yet, the idea of "AI dividend" hand-outs for citizens is bureaucratic and un-American. Those hand-outs are easily unwound by any future administration and do not give Americans any voice in their AI future. 

While no US citizen survey exists yet on citizen co-ownership of AI labs, surveys show a mild opposition to Universal Basic Income, but great concern for the concentration of power and wealth. Citizens' reactions to citizen co-ownership are likely to differ greatly based on the specific modalities of how such co-ownership will be implemented, exercised and governed.  The American way is ownership.

Citizen co-ownership schemes have succeeded in the past, like in the case of Alaska Permanent Fund, Reagan's Employee Stock Ownership Plans, Margaret Thatcher's 1980s privatizations, Norway's Government Pension Fund Global,Singapore's Temasek.

Facebook cofounder Rosenstein's One Project went further matching citizen co-ownership of AI labs with the need of effective way to implement such ownership in the decision making structure, reliant partly on a proven participatory mechanism. 

Sam Altman argued for variants of citizen co-ownership of AI labs for years.  In April OpenAIproposed a “public wealth fund that provides every citizen — including those not invested in financial markets — with a stake in A.I.-driven economic growth.” while Anthropic's own CEO endorsed last October "national sovereign wealth funds with stakes in AI", and more recently “universal capital account”. 

In the last three months the movement has picked up steam, with a widely bipartisan and MAGA The Human Movement, participated by Bannon and Beck making citizen co-ownership of AI labs MAGA-coded. In its May 12th 1st Open Letter to Donald Trump, the Coalition for a Baruch Plan for AI proposed Trump such citizen co-ownership and emphasized the need to be held personally rather than in a state fund and backed by a treaty — in order to be doable and durable. On May 25th, Pope’s encyclical was completely centered on sharing of the power and wealth of AI, hence the President can likely count on the Pope’s wholehearted support. 

Then breakthroughs came starting May 29th. 

In the span of less than two weeks an incredible consensus has been mounting:

• Citizen co-ownership of 50%  top AI and robotics labs was called for by Bannon and by Sanders — with a radical difference, one to accrue to individual Americans, and the other into a federal sovereign fund. 

• On the same day of Sanders announcement, Altmancame out very strongly against Universal Basic Income as not enough to give power and agency to people. A few days later, he publicly announced and held an hourlong meeting with Sanders, reportedly stating afterward that  50% would be too much.

• Most importantly, a few day later, Sanders proposal was commented on favorably by President Trump

• And then on June 10th by Anthropic CEO Amodei, calling for the scheme proposed by Bannon and us in our May 12th letter, using the alternate term "universal capital accounts". 

Yet, such federal policies, on their own, would never fly if not tied to a treaty, for two reasons.

First, if implemented at the federal level those policies would very likely pose a massive actual or perceived risk of reduced competitiveness with China on pure capability, and so they will nearly certainly become a political no-go — unless they are tied to a proper treaty. 

Second, even though citizen co-ownership terms may be mandatorily inscribed at the charter level of each large US AI and robotics firm, there are still ways by which such terms could be repealed by a future congress. 

For these reasons,  every treaty signatory will be mandated to ensure some basic terms of citizen co-ownership of its leading AI and robotics firms, by means each nation designs for itself.

Just as the President and US AI leaders came to support economic models unthinkable a few months earlier, the same can be expected of China, given the long standing of citizen co-ownership concepts in communist thought.  Xi Jinping's Common Prosperity agenda and the post-2020 reining-in of Chinese tech billionaires. The political instinct is the same on both sides of the Pacific: a runaway tech oligarchy is a threat to any sitting head of state. In China, the National Social Security Fund, China Investment Corporation, and provincial citizen-benefit vehicles already hold significant SOE equity and can be extended to AI champions, and perhaps could be starting points. 

Built as a natural evolution of Trump’s policy infrastructure and political aims of theU.S. Sovereign Wealth Fund,Genesis Mission and Trump Accounts, the new policy scheme can ensure every American family holds a direct stake in any leading AI and robotics firm — whose value largely derives from humans’ collective knowledge and the implicit government financial guarantees.

As inquired in detail by One Project, with notable foresight, effective citizens' shareholder oversight should be ensured while safeguarding competent and efficient management via proper, time-proven, and battle-tested variants of proxy voting and citizens' shareholder assemblies. 

Citizen shareholders, not citizen managers. Voting rights, dividends, transparency — without the operational interference that would slow the very firms whose performance Americans now depend on.

By pursuing this or similar plans, the President can future-proof US economic leadership, prevent Chinese dominance, and reduce immense risks to himself and his family.

Historical Precedents for Proper AI Treaty

Most academic literature makes reference to IAEA or the Montreal Protocol as models for the AI treaty we need. Yet, the IAEA has not even tried to meaningfully reduce the nuclear holocaust risk, but just contain it, while the Montreal Protocol was about such an easy, economically and militarily insignificant issue that it is incomparable. Yet, the only example that fits and almost succeeds is the attempts at an international control of nuclear weapons and energy right after WW2.

In late 1945 and early 1946, a pragmatic US president, Harry Truman, was progressively led by a few key advisors to present to the United Nations what remains by far history's boldest treaty proposal: the Baruch Plan for the international control of nuclear weapons and energy.

The historical parallels with today’s predicament with AI are striking: ever-louder warnings from most top scientists and AI lab leaders, plummeting presidential approval ratings, and mounting concerns and calls for a treaty by a large majority of US voters. 

Many scholars agree that if the US had sought an agreement first with the Soviets, and not with its Western allies, the Plan could have succeeded. This bilateral-first approach, pioneered by Niels Bohr in 1944, was championed in the September 1945 proposal of Secretary of War Stimson. Backed by former VP Henry Wallace and Deputy Secretary of State Dean Acheson, it was still not enough to convince Truman.

Here the President, via Kratsios's UN Security Council call (see Phase 1), has already seen more clearly than both China-hawks and Amodei.

If a critical mass of key potential influencers of Trump's AI policy rises to history's calling, and learns from Truman's mistakes, the President could co-lead with Xi such a global AI treaty.

In doing so, the President would contain China, future-proof US economic leadership, and prevent catastrophic risks that would spare no one. Trump would succeed where Truman failed and secure an unparalleled legacy.

A positive example of feasibility is the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Created in 1997 and ratified by 193 nations, the OPCW has succeeded in durably restraining the large-scale research, production, and use of chemical weapons, preventing large-scale accidents or misuse to date.

Remarkably, the Baruch Plan was presented on June 14th, 1946 — within one hour of Donald Trump's birth. Perhaps a sign of destiny: next year's June 14th could be the date to announce the Deal of the Century on AI

Towards a Humans-First Humanist AI Alliance

Given the prevalence of secular or Judeo-Christian humanism among MAGA opinion leaders, US voters, most top AI lab leaders and most of the key potential influencers of Trump's AI policy, a humans-firsthumanist AI alliance among a critical mass of those influencers is emerging, but not fast enough.

Closed-door meetings to further converge their visions for a proper AI treaty and co-ownership policy could greatly contribute to the emergence and consolidation of such an alliance, which will develop a successful highly-researched and prepared pitch to the President that: (1) demonstrates vast practical benefits for Americans and the President and (2) establishes a set of minimal core ethical principles and practical objectives underlying the scope and methods of a proper global AI treaty-making process.

The alliance's ethical framework will be developed through an open, non-doctrinal, dialectical approach, grounded in human dignity while engaging in honest dialogue with moderate transhumanist aspirations for human flourishing through technology that finds through AI win-win solutions, and regulatory sandboxed, to maximize both rapid innovation and cautiousness. 

This is designed to win the hearts of influential Silicon Valley techno-optimist humanists and outcompete the growing hardcore accelerationist post-humanist camp.

These principles will be conceived from the start to integrate the perspectives of other key global stakeholders: Chinese leadership, middle powers, and most of humanity during the treaty-making process

Should such an informal alliance succeed in convincing the President, negotiations would start during one of his other planned 2026 meetings with Xi, after in May they agree to start dialogue on an AI deal. 

Once Trump and Xi commit to a process, we foresee a role for a nation both sides view as neutral — such as Singapore, whose president has made uniquely forceful statements about global AI coordination

The Coalition

The Coalition comprises 10 international NGOs and 20+ exceptional advisors, including former staff from the UN, National Security Agency, World Economic Forum, UBS, Yale, and Princeton, plus 24 contributors to its 356-page Strategic Memo for the Deal of the Century (v2.6). The Coalition launched in July 2024 and was seed-funded by Jaan Tallinn's Survival and Flourishing Fund in February 2025.

What We Do

We execute via direct outreach towards key potential influencers of Trump's AI policy, their relevant staff, advisors and envoys, and introducers to them.  

Key means are our December 2025, 356-page Strategic Memo (v2.6) for President Trump, and a May 12th 1st Open Letter to President Trump, and a 400-word Appeal to President Trump (draft), 

We engage in a wide array of remote and in-person outreach activities and a series of closed-door roundtables in Washington DC starting this September 15-16, 2026, The Cooperation of Statesmen", (draft event page). .

What We've Built So Far

Since our seed funding in February 2025, we have deeply researched key potential influencers of Trump’s AI policy and executed a targeted persuasion campaign towards them (and their advisors, staff, and introducers to them) with the purpose of swaying Trump on purely pragmatic terms. Our work consisted of two main activities:

Developed an evolving 356-page Strategic Memo

• The Strategic Memo of the Deal of the Century contains detailed analysis of treaty-making pathways, enforcement mechanisms, and convergence scenarios, and over 150 pages of deeply researched "persuasion profiles" of each key potential influencer of Trump's AI policy (their interests, philosophies, psychology, and key AI predictions),

• Targeted influencers include — in revised order following our Q2 2026 pivot — Rubio, Gabbard, Bannon, and DeSantis (Catholic/conservative humanists); Carlson and Rogan (humans-first media); Altman, Amodei, Hassabis, Suleyman, and Sutskever (humans-first techno-humanists); with Pope Leo XIV and Vance now secondary; and trans/post-humanists (Musk, Thiel) and administration officials (Kratsios, Sacks, Helberg) tracked as structural constraints."

(2) Engaged selected key potential influencers of Trump's AI policy

• So far, we have engaged 85+ relevant staff and advisors of the influencers in SF and DC, held group private dinners in SF and DC, engaged 23+ AI lab officials directly and 28+ DC-based AI governance experts. For four key potential influencers — Dario Amodei, Pope Leo XIV, Marco Rubio, and Kratsios — we have ongoing engagement with relevant officials or advisors directly reporting to them.

• Since Q4 2025, we have reached out and engaged with them (and their advisors, staff, and introducers to them) directly or through our network, via email and via a three-week October 2025 Persuasion Tour in DC and the Bay Area.

• In Q1 2026, counting on a potential key role for a Pope-Vance alignment following Vance’s deferment to the Pope on AI ethics and safety, we engaged extensively with Vatican AI leaders. We gathered much interest around a June 2026 Roundtable in Rome with exceptional participants. However — due to Thiel’s March 2026 lectures in Rome depicting anyone fostering a treaty to prevent ASI as an Antichrist and a brutal clash between Trump, Vance and the Pope on the war in Iran — the “Caesar-Popist fusion” feared by Thiel has been successfully averted (or pre-empted). Hence, we decided to refocus away from the Pope and Vance as targets for now and merge our planned June Rome event with one being planned in Washington DC in September 2026 with several US and DC-based local co-hosting NGOs. 

• In Q2 2026, we focused on bridge funding, administrative work and set up fiscal sponsorship that enables us to operate and receive donations as a US 501(c)(3). produced deep strategic analysis of the latest news, advanced the strategic memo v3.0, prepared for our September DC event,

Roadmap (-June 2027)

• Follow up and engage with key potential influencers, their advisors and staff, and introducers to them, including Anthropic where we are engaging directly with one of the top three decision makers.

• Follow up with Kratsios' OSTP and the State Department, where we are engaging with relevant officials reporting directly to the top decision maker.

• Keep reaching out directly to White House officials and the Office of the President, to the Secretary of Commerce,  the NSA and ODNI, WH Chief of Staff, and more

• Draft or update documents:

  • The Appeal to President Trump (draft), new Open Letters to President Trump (following the published v.1 and v.2), and Strategic Memo for DJT (3.0).

  • Open or direct letters from key potential influencers.

  • An Internal Strategy Plan to share with members, partners, and advisors.

• Hold a series of closed-door meetings in DC and SF, starting with:

  • The September 15-16, 2026 Roundtable in Washington, DC, called “The Cooperation of Statesmen” (draft gdoc of event web page). It is framed to attract suitable US officials, State Department, National Security think tanks, human-first/pro-human advocates, as well as key potential influencers, their advisors and staff, and introducers to them,

• Enable the Coalition to operate as a 501(c)(3) US non-profit entity (Done), while moving its HQ from Rome to DC (6-10 months)

Operation Capacity & Funding

We have achieved all of this with minimal funding, operating at ~$7,500/month, a fraction of a typical DC policy NGO, with one full-time staff member and 20+ volunteers. 

Now, we have a massive opportunity to scale 10x our impact in just months if we can get $500k-$1M in donations. We could hire 2 full or part-time senior content/outreach individuals and 2-3 AI-skilled junior hires to more easily transform our 356-page treasure trove of tailored intelligence — and our overflow of opened influencer pathways — into a highly-tailored, high-bandwidth, targeted facilitation and persuasion campaign and successful convergence meetings in SF and DC. 

We are also looking to diversify our funding sources with some more aligned with our humans-first humanist AI focus. Every dollar goes directly to the mission—no fancy offices, no high staff costs.