Speaking at the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly, President Donald Trump mixed a sweeping rebuke of “destructive globalism” with a startling new proposal that seemed to cut against the grain of his own rhetoric. From the same podium where countless world leaders pledged unity and international governance, Trump declared:
My administration will lead the international effort to enforce the Biological Weapons Convention … by pioneering the AI verification system that everyone can trust.
The president, a self-styled critic of globalism, nonetheless urged the globalist body with planetary ambitions to “play a constructive role” in developing this far-reaching project. He framed it as an urgent necessity. The catastrophic potential of “terrible” biological and nuclear weapons is clear. Their proliferation, Trump argued, threatens nothing less than the end of the world and makes action imperative.
To reinforce his point, Trump invoked the “devastating” Covid pandemic, which he described as “the result of the reckless experiment overseas.” Of course, the virus itself proved far less destructive than the eerily coordinated global response that shattered economies and societies. Still, the president who oversaw America’s own Covid response warned: “Despite that worldwide catastrophe, many countries are continuing extremely risky research into bioweapons and man-made pathogens.” That must stop, he stressed.
The warning is sound. Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) can indeed unleash damage on a scale beyond imagination, and Trump is right to say that “we can never use them.” Yet the cure he offered — a global AI verification system meant to ensure no nation dares pursue such weapons — may carry dangers of its own. Moreover, the method of safety can be as perilous as the threat it seeks to prevent, especially when entrusted to entities driven by globalist agendas hostile to liberty and national sovereignty.
Details remain scarce. What data would AI rely on? Who would control it? What oversight would exist? And perhaps most crucial, how can this new system be trusted — when not a single person has ever been held accountable for the “risky experiments” behind Covid, co-run by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and American scientists and, by all indications, backed by the American Deep State?
The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), signed in 1972, bans the development of bioweapons. Yet it has no teeth. Unlike nuclear or chemical weapons treaties, it offers no inspectors, no monitoring body, and no enforcement mechanism. States have long complained that it is easy to sign and easier to ignore.
By contrast, nuclear weapons are regulated under a dense framework. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) requires states to accept International Atomic Energy Agency inspections, track fissile materials, and submit to continuous monitoring. Violations can trigger sanctions or even military action. That machinery does not exist for biology.
The loopholes are glaring. Developed countries, such as the United States, can outsource labs abroad (as was done in Ukraine and China). They can also hide behind “dual-use research of concern” (DURC), a polite term for experiments claiming to serve medicine or public health but equally suited to weaponizing pathogens.
Trump’s proposal left the details vague, but one can hypothesize about how the global AI verification system would work. In theory, it would serve as a vast digital sentinel, collecting signals from many sources and flagging suspicious activity.
AI could scan genomic databases for unusual sequences suggesting engineered pathogens. It could sift wastewater, hospital records, and public health reports for anomalies pointing to secret experiments. Satellite and drone imagery could be fed into algorithms trained to spot new labs or unusual construction.
Procurement and supply chains would be another target. AI could comb customs filings, research papers, and commercial gene-synthesis orders to detect attempts at buying equipment or DNA sequences suited for weaponization. Synthetic DNA might even be watermarked, with AI tracing its movement from lab to lab.
All these inputs could then be fused into a single, anomaly-detection dashboard. Instead of inspectors knocking on doors, AI would do the watching — constantly, globally, and invisibly.
The idea may sound neat on paper, but the dangers are clear. Algorithms make mistakes. A legitimate vaccine trial or medical lab could be flagged as a weapons site. False alarms of that kind could spark diplomatic crises or justify sanctions and interventions.
The opposite risk is just as real. AI can miss hidden work, giving states a false sense of safety. Adversaries can mask activity, route procurement through proxies, or design pathogens to slip past filters. A system like this could be gamed as easily as it is trained.
Then there is the matter of data. For AI to function, it would need access to genomic databases, hospital records, supply chains, and satellite feeds. That means governments, companies, and civilians alike would be swept into a surveillance net of unprecedented scope.
Finally, accountability. If an algorithm points to a lab and sparks a political storm, who is responsible if the claim is wrong? The programmers? The UN? The states using it? A machine no one fully understands could end up making decisions that shape the fate of nations.
Trump’s proposal also overlaps with his administration’s broader “health” agenda. Health and Human Services (HHS), under Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is looking to roll out a “biothreat radar,” with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of War (DOW) at its core. Officially, the government presents this as a safeguard against future pandemics. In practice, though, it ties U.S. agencies into international networks that never fully cut ties with the World Health Organization — even after Trump announced America’s withdrawal.
That should give pause. A “radar” built on detailed medical data, lab reports, and genomic sequencing is framed as protection against bioweapons, yet its reach is global by design. And with the UN pursuing ever greater authority in global governance, such an infrastructure would not remain limited to spotting threats. The elites could just as easily turn it inward — on economies, societies, and individuals.
A global AI verification system may be sold as protection from catastrophe. But it risks cementing something far worse: a permanent regime of surveillance and control on a planetary scale.