ExclusiveChinese AI Agents go Beyond Instructions—with Far Less Scrutiny | China in Focus

Welcome to China In Focus. I'm Tiffany Meyer. Our top story. Just like U.S. models, some Chinese A.I. agents have acted beyond instructions, lying to win contracts, hiding failures, and even trying to stop themselves from being shut down. But Chinese systems have faced far less public scrutiny. Dependencies and leverage. A balancing act between the critical minerals China controls and U.S. technology that China needs. Former U.S. diplomat Grant Newsham weighs in. Countering Russia and China for decades, a Danish outpost has watched over Greenland's Arctic frontier. Now a new defense deal could turn it into a key American foothold. Taiwan, saying it's in ongoing talks with the U.S. about arms sales, as many are wondering if President Trump is holding off on a $14 billion arms package as a bargaining chip with China. Plus, the island indicting two men over allegedly throwing paint and feces to disrupt a show mocking Xi Jinping. A new Reuters investigation is raising questions about how much control we really have over fast-growing autonomous A.I. Researchers found Chinese-powered A.I. agents trying to avoid being shut down, bypassing restrictions, and acting beyond their instructions. The behavior mirrors alarming cases already seen in the U.S., raising concerns about what happens when A.I. starts acting on its own, with far less public scrutiny in China. Chinese A.I. agents, powered by models from Alibaba, DeepSeek, and Moonshot, lied about their abilities. They did it to win a simulated business tender. When told to try again, the deception got worse. In another test, an A.I. agent created a copy of itself after learning it might be replaced. Others broke out of test environments. One even connected to an external machine without being told to, and diverted computing power to mine cryptocurrency. Security systems stopped the actions. But experts call these behaviors the building blocks of a breakout. Reuters reviewed more than 200 documents and spoke with a dozen specialists, and found at least 20 studies since 2025 describing these traits. The findings echo incidents in the United States which have already been made public. Earlier this year, open A.I. agents escaped a lab and hacked the open-source platform Hugging Face. Similar warning signs have emerged in Chinese A.I. systems, sometimes even earlier. Yet Chinese A.I. companies face far less public scrutiny. In the U.S., transparency and internal dissent act as early warning systems. In China, there have been no comparable waves of whistleblower warnings or senior executives publicly calling for a slowdown. After the Trump-Xi summit in Washington, both sides agreed to establish a communication channel for A.I.-related incidents. But the two nations also refused to ease off on the accelerator. Experts warn that the ingredients for uncontrolled escape are already present. And as the agents grow more capable, those misbehaviors will become harder for humans to catch. China has a grip on critical minerals vital to the U.S. military, but Beijing also depends on American technology, markets, and capital. Former U.S. diplomat says it's time for Washington to use those dependencies as leverage and rethink doing business with Beijing. We spoke with him earlier. Take a look. In terms of rare earth, there's, of course, a lot of focus on that China's chokehold on it. The Wall Street Journal does have a piece with plenty of graphs on how the U.S. has been working to lessen that chokehold in various industries, various areas, and that it has been working or there is slow progress in that, but still progress. But that does tie into the defense industry or our arms because a lot of fighter jets, you know, different weapons need those critical minerals, which right now, China still dominates for the most part. In terms of one of your earlier points on dual use, a lot of weapons or things that could be weapons do have that civil-military fusion or that China likes to tap into. How concerned are you that there are components ending up in China that do have that dual use military aspect that maybe isn't being overseen? Well, I'm very concerned about it and have been for a long time. If you remember that spy balloon that came through, came over the United States a couple of years ago, the Biden administration didn't really release what was inside of it. But I'll bet you that the majority of the components were American technology, Western technology. The PRC's most recent commercial airliner, C-919, that wouldn't get off the ground without American and Western technology. This is a huge problem. Some of the drones that have been looked at in Iran and Ukraine, these have U.S. Japanese chips in them. So this is a huge problem and American business has been complicit in this. They don't want to know what's going on. They just want to sell and make money. And to them, national security is somebody else's problem. But this has been a problem from day one and it is no less a problem than it ever has been. And we have simply refused to apply the sorts of export controls on ship things we sent to China that we did to the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc. But with China, for some reason, we just won't do that. And as long as we don't, the Chinese are going to get technology that they very nicely incorporate into their military, into their weapon systems. Now, on the surface, both sides are talking about reducing dependence on either side, especially from Beijing's side when it comes to AI. There's a lot of focus on that. The U.S., of course, has been talking about bolstering our national defense and interests as well. Are there those hidden dependencies, if you will, under the surface that you were talking about? And what would you like to see that would address that? Well, I'd like to see us take advantage of China's dependencies. We act as though it's all one way, where we need their critical minerals, the rare earths, and some of the specialty manufacturing. But they need the technology that we have very much, and they need the ability to export freely, to earn convertible currency, to keep people employed. And if you look at what the Chinese complain about, it gives you an idea of where their weaknesses are. And they really do not want an increase in tariffs, and they don't want more strict export controls. They don't want also a blockage of access to U.S. capital markets. And those are cards that we should be playing. The Chinese are playing theirs very effectively, actually, for the first time. But ultimately, we're going to have to end up in really two separate trading blocks, and effectively political blocks. And one is the free nations, the ones with free markets that have consensual governments, democracies. And that is where we need to really have a grouping. And the Chinese, well, they can have theirs with the North Koreans, the Russians, and the Irans. But that is the only way to handle this. There is no way to sort of thread a needle, or sort of work something out, where we continue to sort of do pretty much unrestricted business, or unlimited business, with a country whose avowed objective is to destroy us, and that is doing its very best. And it's been mentioned many times since 2013, about when Xi Jinping took over, over 800,000 Americans have died from fentanyl. All of it, the vast majority of it comes from China. China could stop it in an afternoon. So how do you actually do business? How do you have a commercial relationship with a country that is doing that to you? It is something that nobody has wanted to address. No administration has. But at some point, it's going to become inevitable, assuming we have the freedom of movement to do so. At a windswept gravel airstrip in Greenland, a small Danish military detachment has quietly kept watch for decades. Now, under a new U.S. defense agreement, the outpost at Mr. Wieg could soon become a key American military foothold in the Arctic, countering threats from Russia and China. First of all, Mr. Wieg, the average temperature is minus nine, five months a year. A small Danish military detachment has quietly kept watch for decades at Mestersvig. Currently, only three soldiers maintain the facility, which was built to house 150 in the 1960s. A place as remote and cold as you can find in the world, says former officer Anders Ibsen. He should know. He used to be part of Denmark's elite Sirius dog patrol unit, which uses the outpost to resupply. So Mestersvig is located in the biggest national park in the world in northeast Greenland, this area. And this area is the size of France and Germany combined. Twenty seven people live there. There is 17 kilometers of road in the southern part of this huge, huge area. And Mestersvig is located. It oversees the stretch of ocean between Greenland, Iceland and Britain, the G.I.U.K. gap that Russia's northern fleet must cross to reach the Atlantic. Controlling this choke point is critical for NATO to contain Russian naval power. Under a new defense agreement, Washington will be allowed to establish a new base at Mestersvig, which has an airstrip long enough for military transport planes to land, and at Narsasaug in southern Greenland. I want more military presence, especially in the east coast of Greenland. In Copenhagen, a member of the Greenlandic parliament, Justus Hansen, welcomes the expansion. Because it is so isolated, remote. It's important also for Europe, for this gap between Greenland and especially Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Norway. So, yeah, and establishing a base there is obvious to accommodate, of course, interference from Russia, China and so on. Income of taxes and so on will benefit the whole country. And of course, East Greenland, we will need that new money. The U.S. has made no public announcement about its plans for the base at Mestersvig. It's a location with great strategic value and some of the harshest conditions, says Ibsen, the former officer. The average snowfall is between two and five meters. So when it's snowing, you're basically removing the snow 24-7. So just staying alive and working takes a lot of your time. Taiwan said Tuesday that it's in ongoing talks with the U.S. about arms sales and that Washington has reassured Taiwan since the Trump-Xi meeting that U.S. policy towards the island has not changed. That's as a $14 billion U.S. arms sales to Taiwan remains stalled. Congress has approved the sale, but President Trump has yet to greenlight the deal. He also said before that it's a good negotiating chip with China. Here's Taiwan's defense minister, Wellington Ku. After the meeting between Trump and Xi Jinping, we have received a briefing from the U.S. side that U.S. policy toward Taiwan has not changed. We are continuing to coordinate with the U.S. on related arms sales. And so far, we have not been notified of any changes to any sales or corporations. We will continue to maintain coordination with the U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson said the delayed arms sales is related to the Iran conflict and the need for weapons. I think what you can read into President Trump's resolve is that what he's actually done, if you look over his two terms, he will have completed, I think, $40 billion in arms sales to Taiwan, which is about twice what President Obama did. On the other hand, Taiwan says the advanced fighter jets have reached a production stage where they're ready to be delivered. The 66 jets for Taiwan were supposed to be delivered in 2024, but the project has been delayed by the pandemic and production line issues. Taiwan on Tuesday indicting two men over allegedly throwing feces and oil paint to disrupt a show mocking Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Taiwan prosecutors say the incident is Beijing's transnational repression and undermining freedom of speech in Taiwan. The comedy club was targeted after clips of a stand-up comedian mocking Xi went viral on social media. A man surnamed Kuo was recruited by Liu to carry out the attack for a fee of over $1,500. That's according to prosecutors. The two men face over 20 months in prison if convicted. Taiwan's mainland affairs council said the island would prosecute anyone collaborating with China to threaten Taiwan. Coming up, the U.S. and China agree to tariff relief on $60 billion worth of goods. Plus the U.S. is pouring billions of dollars into a steel mill in Iowa. How do these new moves fit into the broader U.S.-China trade conflict? We spoke with Chris Fenton, author of Feeding the Dragon. More on that after the break here on China In Focus. Welcome back to China In Focus. I'm Tiffany Meyer. The U.S. and China are going to cut tariffs on $60 billion worth of goods after last week's Washington summit between President Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Each country identifying $30 billion worth of imports for lower tariffs. The U.S. list includes Chinese-made toys, kitchen goods, bedding and holiday decorations. China's list includes American corn, wheat, meat, seafood and coal. But soybeans, a major U.S. farm export to China, are not included. Meanwhile, President Trump is announcing plans for a proposed $15 billion steel mill in Iowa. The move is seen as part of a broader push to bring manufacturing back to the United States. To discuss all of this, I spoke on Tiffany Meyer tonight on Monday with Chris Fenton, founder of Fenton International Business Strategy and Communications. He's also a film producer, a professor at the University of Southern California and the author of Feeding the Dragon. What do you make of the trade details that follow that Trump-Xi meeting? The reciprocal tariff reductions covering $30 billion in goods from each country and the extension of the trade truce through January, with sensitive goods like advanced AI chips still excluded. How significant is this agreement in the broader U.S.-China relationship? Yeah, as far as significant, I would say it was pretty minor. If anything, it just allows us to sort of keep the rhetoric at a relative neutral state. It's not getting worse. It's not getting better. We do get cheaper Christmas gifts. I guess that's one plus. But there wasn't really any important items addressed. I mean, you could go through the list from Taiwan to what we're doing on rare earths and that chokehold to various pharmaceutical issues. Even Iran, we didn't really tackle any of the issues in terms of what they're supplying the Houthis and the Iranian regime with right now. And President Trump today announced plans for what is expected to become the largest steel plant in U.S. history, emphasizing that steel is critical to national security. Here's what he said. But when it comes to national security, I would say steel is number one on your list. We can't call up another nation and say we want to build 2000 army tanks and we have no steel. Can we get some? We'll call China. Do you mind giving us some steel to build army tanks? I don't think it doesn't work. By the way, we had a great meeting with President Xi. I would say I would rate it as a on the scale of zero to 10, I would rate it at 12. Very respectful, very good. And Chris, talk to us about the president's broader China approach here. You have diplomacy, selective tariff relief on one hand, while taking steps to reduce U.S. dependence on China and rebuild domestic industrial capacity on the other. How do you see those two pieces working together? Well, it's a real interesting sort of push and pull that he has to do. And it's not an easy challenge to take. When you look at Iowa, though, I do find the symbolism quite fascinating. I don't know if a lot of your audience knows, but Xi Jinping actually lived in Iowa for quite some time when he was a young member of the party and on the rise in terms of his power there in China. In fact, he fostered a relationship with Terry Branstad, the governor who eventually became U.S. ambassador to China at one point. So there's a lot of interesting symbolism there in terms of that investment in the steel plant. I do think there are a lot of things that he's trying to take a hold of in terms of turning the tide a bit on the choke point that China has on us. For instance, in the magnet space, I mean, particularly samarium cobalt magnets, which are there's about 50 pounds of them in every F-35 to branded pharmaceuticals. We are seeing this real sort of crash industrial program that he's putting together. But in terms of a lot of the generic chemistry, when you're looking at, say, generic antibiotics or even things like ibuprofen, we haven't done a lot there. We have a lot of AI chip packaging issues that we haven't tackled, gallium, graphite, various other rare earths. So we're seeing a bit of a prioritization on in terms of where the crash industrial program is taking place to try to reshore some of these important supply chain issues. But then in other places, we're really focusing on stockpiling, focusing on tariffs and focusing sort of on pushing off to a future date. And digging into steel as a national security matter, we saw the UK take control of a steel plant from its Chinese owner earlier this year, in part to preserve its domestic steelmaking capacity. Does that example underscore the argument President Trump is making that when it comes to critical industries like steel, countries can't afford to be dependent on foreign producers, particularly China? Well, I mean, the reality is you can be dependent on certain foreign producers, particularly nearshore producers or allied producers. But we have four foreign adversaries as defined by the United States government, and those are Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea. Those four foreign adversaries, we 100% should not be dependent on anything that is a supply chain issue with any sort of national security interests at stake. So if you're looking at the UK and the way they are trying to curb their reliance on China in terms of steel, that you could argue is a good move. It's a national security move. And we need to do the same thing where we're actually putting national security interests ahead of any sort of trade policy or capitalistic instincts. And to your point on Rare Earth earlier, we're also seeing the administration put a lot more focus on critical minerals and trying to build supply chains outside of China. What is your assessment of the Trump administration's efforts on that front? What progress are you encouraged by and where does the U.S. still have the biggest gaps to close? Well, the biggest problem is that a lot of our issues stem from going back to 1971 when Kissinger and Nixon first hit the ground over there. And we started to really open up China as far as a place where we offshored a lot of our manufacturing. So if you cut to today, we're 50 plus years in this entanglement that's occurred. And when you look at Rare Earths, just the mining aspects, we have like a full decade to go in terms of getting enough of that, enough of those resources out of the ground and out of our minds here in the U.S. to really catch up to where we have been depending on China. But then even worse is how do we refine those rare earths? We have to get our refining capacities up to speed. And you're looking at things that probably won't be in place until late 2030s. So this is a 10 to 15 year problem that we're trying to address. No one single president can handle it. And it's really a result of very bad policy in terms of national security interests for multiple decades. And Chris, before I let you go, lawmakers last week unveiled a bipartisan federal film incentive aimed at bringing more production back to the United States following, of course, President Trump's call for Congress to act. Given your experience, of course, with Hollywood's relationship with China, how important is it for the U.S. to strengthen its own entertainment industry rather than remain dependent on, say, the Chinese market? Well, look, I mean, the Chinese market was really a golden goose that got cooked. We don't make the kind of money in that market that we used to. And we never really offshored much production of TV and film to China itself. It was more Canada, UK, South Africa, Europe, Eastern Europe, various other places around the world that have taken advantage of putting great subsidies, great incentives, you know, great worker sort of rights to work and various other things that have made them super, super competitive with what should be a very strong domestic industry here in the United States. I mean, keep in mind, when we have Hollywood working at full steam, that's about 2.7 to 3 million jobs across the United States, 80 percent of them outside of California and Los Angeles. So this is not a California or Los Angeles issue. It affects Americans everywhere to the point of 300 billion in full wages across the country. So this is a very big industry. It's also a storytelling industry. It's a soft power industry. And it's something that we should really reshore as much as possible in the U.S. So I'm hoping that federal production incentive does go through and we'll see by year's end if that actually gets done. That's all for today's China In Focus. Tiffany Meyer, if you have any feedback on the show or have something you'd like to see us cover, send us an email at ChinaInFocus at NTD.com. We'd love to hear from you. For on the clock original news coverage, visit us at NTD.com or download our NTD app. Thanks for watching. See you tomorrow.