In a global race to master artificial intelligence, Congress is worried about the American secrets. Recently, the judicial subcommittee of the Chamber of Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence and the Internet held an audience entitled “Protection of our advantage: trade secrets and the global arms race” to discuss the growing role of trade secrets in a world ready to rely on artificial intelligence (“IA”).
Trade secrets in the AI world arms race
The United States is in a “AI world arms race”, underlined the president of the subcommittee, Darrell Issa (R-CA). With this, the need to balance the continuous protection of trade secrets, the sets of proprietary data and other key aspects of AI models against “vigor of transparency” according to the requirements of the public. Compared to less than a third of that of China, Deepseek still managed to compete with American players established like Openai.
Trade secrets as a critical infrastructure
Nicholas Andersen – A former senior cybersecurity – has established the scene by focusing on the critical need to protect American trade secrets in the middle of the climbing of global IA competition. Andersen underlined the systematic nature and sponsored by the state of the flight of foreign intellectual property, describing it as a direct threat to American technological and economic leadership. His main concern was the erosion of strategic deterrence against such threats which continue to reduce American trade secrets. In its words, AI is not only a new technology but rather a “critical infrastructure” which is continuously attacked by opponents. Sometimes these attacks are not detected, entering the United States as Trojan horses disguised by start-ups promising to be “the next great thing”. Implementing screening mechanisms, unless committed with military or foreign governments, and requiring the disclosure of AI technologies in which the above groups are involved are potential solutions suggested by Andersen.
Legal gaps and application limits
As the AI becomes smarter, more effective and more anchored in society – both via everyday consumers as well as the integration of the government and the private sector – the same goes for the value of the commercial secrets they hold. Trade secrets, by definition, retain value by the very fact that they are not disclosed to the public. In the past, inventors could rely on the protection of patents or copyright for technologies that were not easily reversed. Today, however, these protections are much less effective for AI innovations which can be copies or retro-ingerated abroad, leaving Americans little or no recourse. Currently, the law on economic espionage (18 USC § 1831 and following.) And the Defense Secrets Act (18 USC § 1836 and following.) Criminalize and create a right of civil action against the diversion of commercial secrets. However, this right of action is limited to the American courts, and the few international avenues to fight against secret commercial flight are largely considered to be ineffective and impracticable. Christopher Mohr of Software & Information Industry Association underlined the lack of effective international remedies and urged the congress to strengthen the defenses. Its proposals included the increase in support for cybersecurity to small businesses, by taking advantage of the foreign investment committee in American journals to block unauthorized data and trade transfers and the promotion of the development of AI systems independently of foreign suppliers. Mr. Mohr believed that less disclosure of training data, weights of the model and other AI materials is the best choice.
From national security dispute
Dr. Benjamin Jensen of the University of the Navy Corps argued that theft of commercial secrecy must be treated as a national security threat, and not only as a civil dispute. In its words, the growing use of AI is a “race to dominate the agency era” and is “now a central characteristic of 21st CENTURY GREAT POWER COMPETITION “which should not be left to civil litigation solutions. He proposed that the United States should act under national security threat to examine things such as tax credits, international criminal sanctions and other incentives to encourage cooperation and punish malinated actors. Access to trade secrets, sensitive data and semiconductors and other materials necessary to effectively manage these larger AI programs.
Talent challenge
The Kamlager-Dove representative (D-CA) has pressed a different concern. She stressed the importance of considering the WHO involved in AI not just the What. Referring to a recent “AI talented report” prepared by the Council of Economic Advisors to the White House from January 14, 2025, it has questioned the impact that any proposed regulation could have whether the United States does not deal with the attraction, development and retention of foreign talents. Helen Toner of the Georgetown University Center for Security and Emerging Technology has recognized that one of the greatest advantages compared to foreign countries is the fact that the United States offers world-class education and opportunity. The limitation of the AI talent basin to these in the United States would seriously limit the country’s ability to maintain its leadership in the AI world. On this point, she quotes that more than two thirds of the “AI startups were a founder of an immigrant”.
What is the next step
The momentum is already being built. The Commerce Department recently abandoned its “AI dissemination rule” proposed and should issue more strict export controls. Meanwhile, August 12, 2025, John Moolenaar (R -Mich) – Houseman of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party – has made the International Commerce Commission prohibited the importation of exhibitions produced by Boe Technology Co., Ltd. (Boe). Boe is a foreign manufacturer of advanced OLED presentations and has made us fear concerns for his alleged American patent and secret commercial flight. See for exampleLetter from the representative John Moolenaar, president of the selective committee of the House on the CCP, to the Honorable Lloyd Austin, Secretary, US Department of Defense (Sept. 24, 2024). The request of the representative of Moolenaar comes on a determination of July 2025 by the ITC that the BOE violated article 337, diverting trade secrets and recommended an exclusion prescription concerning the display modules and the components of BOES OLED. In terms of certain display modules and components of organic emission diodesUSITC, 337-TA-1378. As technologies become more precious and the use of automatic learning and AI engage the rate to which these technologies increase, the need to protect American trade secrets and intellectual property will generally only increase.
To take away for companies
As AI is put in business and government, the value of trade secrets behind these systems increases exponentially. Companies must carefully assess the source and security of all the AI tools they authorize – whether in open source or owner, in particular when managing confidential data or RGPD information. In the absence of clear regulatory directives, organizations should coordinate through IT teams, compliance and legal teams to adopt responsible practices that allow both innovation and to protect trade and sensitive information that underlies their competitiveness.
[View source.]
