AI has emerged as a critical geopolitical battleground where Washington and Beijing are racing not just for economic advantage, but military dominance. Despite these high stakes, there's surprising little consensus on how—or whether—to respond to frontier AI development.

The polarized landscape features techno-optimists battling AI safety advocates, with the former

dismissing the latter as "doomers" who exaggerate existential risks. Meanwhile, AI business leaders face criticism for potentially overstating their companies' capabilities to attract investors and secure favorable regulations that protect their market positions.

Democrats and civil rights advocates warn that focusing solely on catastrophic risks versus economic prosperity distracts from immediate harms like misinformation, algorithmic discrimination, and synthetic media abuse. U.S. regulatory efforts have struggled, with California's SB 1047 failing last year and Trump repealing Biden's AI Executive Order on inauguration day. Even the future of the U.S. government's AI Safety Institute remains uncertain under the new administration.

With a new administration in Washington, important questions linger: How should government approach AI's national security implications? Can corporate profit motives align with safer outcomes? And if the U.S. and China are locked in an AI arms race, is de-escalation possible, or are we heading toward a digital version of Mutually Assured Destruction?

Joining me to explore these questions are Dan Hendrycks, AI researcher and Director of the Center for AI Safety and co-author of "Superintelligence Strategy," a framework for navigating advanced AI from a national security and geopolitical perspective, and FAI's own Sam Hammond, Senior Economist and AI policy expert.

It’s an understatement that U.S.-China relations have been tense in recent years. Policymakers and industry leaders have elevated concerns around China’s trade practices, including currency manipulation, intellectual property theft, and allegations that China is directing or enabling fentanyl to flood into the U.S.

Trade and public health are increasingly linked, as COVID revealed the vulnerability of medical supply chains when U.S. overreliance on China led to delays and shortages of masks and personal protective equipment. Another issue that’s getting more attention from lawmakers and parents is the prevalence of Chinese-made, counterfeit electronic cigarettes or “vapes” throughout the U.S. Politicians from Senator Ashley Moody (R-FL) to President Trump himself have raised the alarm. 

At the same time, American manufacturers have bemoaned the slow and stringent regulatory process they have faced at the FDA, which they say has enabled China to flood the market with cheap, sketchy alternatives. With a new FDA administrator set to take the helm, key questions remain. How did we end up in this situation, and what are the lessons not just for public health, but for other areas where the U.S. is looking to tighten up its trade policy. Is it possible for the U.S. to maintain the ideal of a relatively free market without adversaries exploiting that freedom?

Evan is joined by Joel Thayer, President of the Digital Progress Institute. You can read his op-ed on illicit vapes, the Bloomberg report we discuss in the episode, as well as Aiden Buzzetti’s op-ed in CommonPlace. 

Since President Trump returned to office, tariffs have once again dominated economic policy discussions. Recent headlines have highlighted escalating trade tensions with China, renewed disputes with Canada and Mexico, and the ongoing controversy surrounding Trump’s proposal to repeal the CHIPS Act—a $52 billion semiconductor initiative that enjoys wide support in Congress as essential for U.S. technological independence.

But while tariffs capture public attention, beneath these headlines is a much broader debate over America's industrial strategy—how the nation can rebuild its manufacturing base, ensure economic prosperity, and strengthen national security in an increasingly competitive global environment. Critics argue that the shortcomings of recent attempts at industrial policy, such as the CHIPS Act, prove why government can’t outperform free markets.

Our guests today have a different view. 

Marc Fasteau and Ian Fletcher of the Coalition for a Prosperous America authored a new book, Industrial Policy for the United States: Winning the Competition for Good Jobs and High-Value Industries. They argue that a bold, comprehensive industrial strategy is not only achievable but essential—calling for targeted tariffs, strategic currency management, and coordinated investments to rejuvenate American industry and secure the nation's future. But will their approach overcome the challenges of bureaucracy, political division, and international backlash? And can industrial policy truly deliver on its promise of economic renewal?

Everyone wants government to work better, and part of that is updating outdated systems and embracing modern technology. The problem? Our federal government faces a critical tech talent crisis. Only 6.3% of federal software engineers are under the age of 30, which is lower than the percentage of total federal workers under 30. That means that federal tech talent skews older than lawyers, economists, etc. Not to mention, Silicon Valley pays 2-3x more than the feds, which makes it hard to attract computer science majors into government. The shortage threatens America's ability to navigate an era of technological disruption across AI, quantum computing, defense tech, and semiconductors.

While recent initiatives like Elon Musk's temporary team of young engineers and the $500 billion Stargate program highlight the urgency, they don't solve the fundamental problem: creating a sustainable pipeline of technical talent willing to take a pay cut for public service. This talent gap could hamper innovation despite the current AI boom that's receiving 60% of venture funding. How can the private sector and federal government work to bridge this gap?

Evan is joined by Arun Gupta, who pivoted from 18 years as a Partner at Columbia Capital investing in cybersecurity and AI startups to leading NobleReach Foundation, which works to bring some of the best assets of the private sector into public service. They explore how to bridge the gap between Silicon Valley and government service to ensure America can effectively regulate, adopt, and leverage emerging technologies for the national interest.

Fusion energy, potentially a fuel source that could last a thousand years, is transitioning from science fiction to business reality. Helion Energy recently signed the first fusion power purchase agreement with Microsoft, promising 50 megawatts by 2028. But the story isn't just about the physics breakthroughs that make fusion possible. The U.S. and China are tussling for global leadership in fusion, as is the case in so many fields. And as China is outspending the US on fusion research by about $1.5 billion annually, concerns mount that they could make a serious challenge to America's lead in fusion. After all, while the US pioneered advances in clean energy technologies like solar panels and EVs, America ultimately lost manufacturing leadership to China.

With fusion, the stakes could be much higher, given that fusion has the potential to be the world's "last energy source," with significant economic and national security implications. Evan is joined by Sachin Desai, General Counsel at Helion Energy and former Nuclear Regulatory Commission staffer, and Thomas Hochman, Director of Infrastructure Policy at FAI. They discuss the technical, regulatory, and geopolitical dimensions of what could be this decade's most consequential technology race.

Nuclear fusion, potentially a fuel source that could last a thousand years, is transitioning from science fiction to business reality. Helion Energy recently signed the first fusion power purchase agreement with Microsoft, promising 50 megawatts by 2028. But the story isn't just about the physics breakthroughs that make fusion possible. The U.S. and China are tussling for global leadership in fusion, as is the case in so many fields. And as China is outspending the US on fusion research by about $1.5 billion annually, concerns mount that they could make a serious challenge to America's lead in fusion. After all, while the US pioneered advances in clean energy technologies like solar panels and EVs, America ultimately lost manufacturing leadership to China.

With fusion, the stakes could be much higher, given that fusion has the potential to be the world's "last energy source," with significant economic and national security implications. Evan is joined by Sachin Desai, General Counsel at Helion Energy and former Nuclear Regulatory Commission official, and Thomas Hochman, Director of Infrastructure Policy at FAI. They discuss the technical, regulatory, and geopolitical dimensions of what could be this decade's most consequential technology race.

Mark Zuckerberg sent shockwaves around the world when Meta announced the end of its fact-checking program in the U.S. on its platforms Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. Critics lamented the potential for more mis/disinformation online while proponents (especially conservatives) rejoiced, as they saw the decision as a rollback of political censorship and viewpoint discrimination. Beneath the hot takes lie bigger questions around who should control what we see online. Should critical decisions around content moderation that affect billions of users be left to the whims of Big Tech CEOs? If not, is government intervention any better—and could it even clear First Amendment hurdles? What if there is a third option between CEO decrees and government intrusion?

Enter middleware: third-party software that sits between users and platforms, potentially offering a "third way" beyond what otherwise appears as a binary choice between. Middleware holds the potential to enable users to select different forms of curation on social media by third-parties—anyone from your local church to news outlets to political organizations. Could this technology put power back in the hands of users while addressing concerns about bias, misinformation, harassment, hate speech, and polarization?

Joining us are Luke Hogg, Director of Technology Policy at FAI, and Renée DiResta, Georgetown University professor and author of "Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turned Lies Into Reality." They break down their new paper, “Shaping the Future of Social Media with Middleware,”  on and explore whether this emerging technology could reshape our social media landscape for the better. 

During the pandemic from 2020 to 2021, Congress dropped $190 billion to help reopen schools, provide tutoring, and assist with remote learning. The results? Fourth graders' math scores have plummeted 18 points from 2019-2023, eighth graders’ have dropped 27 points - the worst decline since testing began in 1995. Adult literacy is deteriorating too, with Americans in the lowest literacy tier jumping from 19% to 28% in just six years. Are we watching the collapse of academic achievement in real time?

In this episode, education policy veteran Chester Finn joins us to examine this crisis and potential solutions. Drawing on his experience as a Reagan administration official and decades of education reform work, Finn discusses why accountability measures have broken down, whether school choice can right the ship, and if the federal government's education R&D enterprise is fixable. Joining the conversation are FAI's Dan Lips and Robert Bellafiore, who recently authored new work on leveraging education R&D to help address America's learning challenges.

This is part one of a two-part series examining the state of American education and exploring paths forward as a new administration takes office with ambitious - and controversial - plans for reform.

During the pandemic, Congress spent an unprecedented $190 billion to help reopen schools and address learning loss. But new test scores show the investment isn't paying off - fourth and eighth grade reading levels have hit record lows, performing worse than even during COVID's peak. As the Trump administration signals dramatic changes to federal education policy, from eliminating the Department of Education to expanding school choice, questions about federal involvement in education are moving from abstract policy debates to urgent national security concerns.

In part two of our series on education R&D, we explore these developments with Sarah Schapiro and Melissa Moritz of the Alliance for Learning Innovation, a coalition working to build better research infrastructure in education. Drawing on their extensive experience - from PBS Education to the Department of Education's STEM initiatives - they examine how shifting federal policy could reshape educational innovation and America's global competitiveness. Can a state-centered approach maintain our edge in the talent race? What role should the private sector play? And how can evidence-based practices help reverse these troubling trends in student achievement?

Joining them are FAI's Dan Lips and Robert Bellafiore, who bring fresh analysis on reforming federal education R&D to drive better outcomes for American students. This wide-ranging discussion tackles the intersection of education, national security, workforce development and technological innovation at a pivotal moment for American education policy.

The newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has put state capacity back in the spotlight, reigniting debates over whether the federal government is fundamentally broken or just mismanaged. With Elon Musk at the helm, DOGE has already taken drastic actions, from shutting down USAID to slashing bureaucratic redundancies. Supporters argue this is the disruption Washington needs; critics warn it’s a reckless power grab that could erode public accountability. But regardless of where you stand, one thing is clear: the ability of the U.S. government to execute policy is now under scrutiny like never before.

That’s exactly the question at the heart of this week’s episode. From the Navy’s struggles to build ships to the Department of Education’s FAFSA disaster, our conversation lays out why the government seems incapable of delivering even on its own priorities. It’s not just about money or political will—it’s about outdated hiring rules, a culture of proceduralism over action, and a bureaucracy designed to say "no" instead of "go." These failures aren’t accidental; they’re baked into how the system currently operates. Jennifer Pahlka, former U.S. Deputy Chief Technology Officer under President Obama and Senior Fellow at Niskanen Center and Andrew Greenway, co-founder of Public Digital, join.

The solution? A fundamental shift in how government works—not just at the leadership level, but deep within agencies themselves. She advocates for cutting procedural bloat, giving civil servants the authority to make real decisions, and modernizing digital infrastructure to allow for rapid adaptation. Reform, she argues, isn’t about breaking government down; it’s about making it function like a system designed for the 21st century. Whether DOGE is a step in that direction or a warning sign of what happens when frustration meets executive power remains to be seen.