On February 13, 2026, the United Nations General Assembly delivered a resounding vote: 117 in favor, 2 against, with 2 abstentions, to approve the creation of a 40-member global scientific panel dedicated to studying the impacts and risks of artificial intelligence (AI). While the decision was hailed by many as a milestone for international cooperation and scientific inquiry, it also exposed sharp divisions—most notably, the United States’ strong opposition and a pointed abstention from Ukraine.
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who spearheaded the initiative, did not mince words about its significance. Calling the adoption “a foundational step toward global scientific understanding of AI,” Guterres emphasized the urgent need for rigorous, independent insight as AI technologies race ahead. “In a world where AI is racing ahead,” he said, “this panel will provide what’s been missing — rigorous, independent scientific insight that enables all member states, regardless of their technological capacity, to engage on an equal footing.” According to the Associated Press, he described the group as the first fully independent global scientific body devoted to bridging the knowledge gap in AI and assessing its real-world economic and social impacts.
But what exactly does this new panel do, and why did it spark such controversy, especially with the United States?
The 40-member panel, established by Guterres, is tasked with providing an impartial scientific assessment of artificial intelligence’s risks and benefits on a global scale. Members were selected from a pool of more than 2,600 candidates through an independent review conducted by the International Telecommunications Union, the U.N. Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies, and UNESCO—the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Their three-year terms will see them not only delving into the technological aspects of AI, but also examining its economic, ethical, and social consequences.
The panel’s composition is broad, drawing on expertise from a range of disciplines. While the majority are AI specialists, the group also includes professionals from journalism, linguistics, and high-performance computing. Among the most notable members is Maria Ressa, the Filipino journalist and Nobel Peace Prize laureate recognized in 2021 for her courageous reporting and advocacy for press freedom. Two American experts were selected: Vipin Kumar, a University of Minnesota professor renowned for his work in AI, data mining, and high-performance computing, and Martha Palmer, a retired University of Colorado linguistics professor whose research has focused on how AI systems can better understand complex language.
China, too, is represented by two prominent figures: Song Haitao, dean of Shanghai Jiao Tong University and the Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Research Institute, and Wang Jian, a cloud-computing authority with the Chinese Academy of Engineering. The panel’s international makeup aims to ensure that its findings and recommendations reflect a diversity of perspectives and experiences.
Yet, despite this broad representation and the panel’s stated mission of independence, the United States stood firmly against the measure. U.S. Mission counselor Lauren Lovelace articulated Washington’s objections in no uncertain terms, calling the panel “a significant overreach of the U.N.’s mandate and competence.” According to the Associated Press, Lovelace argued that “AI governance is not a matter for the U.N. to dictate.” She continued, “We will not cede authority over AI to international bodies that may be influenced by authoritarian regimes seeking to impose their vision of controlled surveillance societies.”
Lovelace further voiced concerns about the “non-transparent way” the panel was chosen, suggesting that the selection process failed to meet the standards of openness and accountability that the U.S. expects from such global initiatives. She made it clear that, as the world leader in AI, the United States intends to accelerate its own AI innovation and infrastructure, working alongside “like-minded nations” to promote development “in line with our shared values.” The Trump administration, she said, will support international cooperation on AI but only on terms it finds acceptable.
Paraguay joined the United States in voting “no,” but the reasons for its opposition were not detailed in the statements reviewed by AP. Tunisia and Ukraine abstained. Ukraine’s abstention, however, came with a specific protest: the inclusion of Russia’s Andrei Neznamov, an expert in AI regulation, ethics, and governance, on the panel. Ukraine, embroiled in a protracted conflict with Russia, objected to Neznamov’s participation and cited it as the reason for withholding support.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world’s major players—including America’s traditional allies in Europe and Asia, as well as Russia, China, and many developing countries—voted in favor. This broad coalition signals a growing international consensus that AI’s rapid development demands more than just national oversight; it requires a truly global approach to understanding and managing both the opportunities and the risks.
Guterres, for his part, defended the panel’s selection process, noting that it was conducted by independent bodies and that the final group reflects a wide range of expertise and backgrounds. “The 40 members were selected from more than 2,600 candidates after an independent review by the International Telecommunications Union, the U.N. Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies and UNESCO,” he explained, according to the Associated Press. The panel’s three-year term is designed to give it enough time to produce substantive, actionable recommendations as the world grapples with the fast-evolving challenges of AI.
This latest U.N. action comes at a time of mounting anxiety—and excitement—over the prospects of artificial intelligence. On one hand, AI holds the promise of revolutionizing everything from medicine to transportation, education to environmental protection. On the other, it raises profound questions about privacy, surveillance, job displacement, and the potential for misuse by authoritarian governments or malicious actors. The creation of an independent, scientifically rigorous panel is, in Guterres’s view, a necessary response to these challenges—a way to ensure that every nation, regardless of its technological prowess, can participate in the global conversation about AI’s future.
For the United States, however, the issue is as much about sovereignty and control as it is about technology. Lovelace’s remarks reflect a deep-seated skepticism of international governance, especially in areas where U.S. industry and research lead the world. The Trump administration’s position is clear: it wants to shape the rules of AI development on its own terms, wary of ceding influence to international bodies that might, in its view, be swayed by countries with very different values and priorities.
As the panel prepares to begin its work, all eyes will be on its ability to deliver the “rigorous, independent scientific insight” that Guterres promised. Can it bridge the knowledge gap and help forge a common understanding of AI’s risks and rewards? Or will geopolitical tensions and differing visions for the future of technology undermine its efforts?
One thing is certain: with the U.N. General Assembly’s decisive vote, the global conversation about artificial intelligence just got a lot more interesting—and a lot more urgent.