The South Caucasus has historically been at the center of great-power competition due to its unique location, which sits on the fault line between Europe and the Middle East. The nation of Georgia is now embroiled in domestic strife, as the ruling Georgian Dream party has faced massive protests against its erosion of democratic institutions and reversal of deepening ties with the West. Amidst this instability, China and Russia have stepped up their attempts to gain regional influence in the South Caucasus. Given the rising competition between the West and an emerging autocratic bloc over vulnerable states such as Georgia, the stakes are high.

Tamar Chugoshvili is a Georgian lawyer and democracy advocate, and is currently one of the sixteen Yale World Fellows. She previously served as the First Vice-Speaker of the Parliament of Georgia from 2016-2019, where she spearheaded various institutional reforms and anti-corruption initiatives. This interview was organized by YRIS and conducted with the assistance of Boston Risk Group, a student-led international relations research initiative at Tufts University.

Riley: Thank you for taking the time to speak with us today. Let me just get a short introduction about who you are, what you do, and your work history.

Tamar: Thank you for having me for this interview. So my name is Tamar. I’m a Yale World Fellow. This is a program at Yale University that is run by the Yale International Leadership Center. This is the most competitive program here at Yale, which brings together 16 world fellows each year for one semester from different countries and backgrounds. I come from Georgia. I’m a lawyer and a former member of parliament, with 20 years of experience working in a civil office in politics. Most of my profile focuses on promoting, creating, and building democratic institutions, specifically in my case, reforming representative institutions like Parliament and local councils, and promoting accountability and transparency in executive institutions. 

Riley: All right. So our first question is, you’ve engaged closely with international institutions, from the Council of Europe to the Women Political Leaders Global Forum. What role do international partnerships and civil society play in sustaining democratic progress when political will falters?

Tamar: That’s a very interesting and very difficult question. I have experience working with both civil society organizations and state institutions. And I have represented Georgia on various important platforms, including the Council of Europe, but I also chaired the Georgian Parliament. I represented the parliament of Georgia to other legislative institutions such as the U.S. Congress, the Israeli Knesset, and other parliaments, so I know the role of formal national institutions and the role of non-state institutions, civil society organizations, both local and international. And I should say that cooperation between states and partnerships between countries are of crucial importance, especially for Georgia, considering we are a small country. But the civil society organizations, both nationally and internationally, have tremendous importance. And for years, organizations like Human Rights Watch, or many others, have been very instrumental for us in our democratic transformation, because we were going through a very challenging past. We were reforming ourselves from a post Soviet failed state into a European-style democratic state. That would have been impossible without the support and knowledge that came from all these non-state actors. 

Aiden: You have long been an advocate for transparency, parliamentary reform, and anti-corruption mechanisms. Georgia’s history has been marked by several periods of democratization and backsliding throughout the Saakashvili and Georgian Dream eras. Given these repeated patterns, what do you believe are the necessary preconditions for a durable and long-lasting democracy in Georgia?

Tamar: So indeed, you’re absolutely right. Basically, in my lifetime, I have observed Georgia completely collapse and be devastated, then rise from the ruins, and collapse again. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Georgia had a war with Russia, a civil war, and complete anarchy to follow up. So we’ve been very vigilant on reforming, improving, and rising from this collapse. And I think that if we want to understand global politics, we should start not from Washington, DC. We should start with places like Georgia, like the Caucasus, and why? Because this is a place where these global interests really clash. 

So, geographically, we are located between the West and the East. It’s the meeting point of West and East, and throughout the centuries, interests from Eastern countries have sought to influence the region where Georgia lies. That is what China calls One Belt, One Road. This is a transit route that China wants to use to trade with the West, so the Caucasus is a very important region for them. This region is also very important to Russia, because Russia wants to maintain this part of the world as its backyard. It wants to prevent us from joining NATO. It also wants to prevent us from joining the European Union. And at the end of the day, the last thing they want to see is a country in the former Soviet order prospering as a democratic state. 

And while the United States and the West dominated world politics after the Cold War, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the presence of the United States and US politics in Georgia was very strong. The US was supporting Georgia to build our country up against a neighbor that really is our enemy. So for us to exist and to develop as an independent country, we needed a strong friend. And that strong friend for us has been the United States and the West. 

It was young people, people your age, years ago, who started working for very high offices in the civil service. Some of them became members of parliament. They themselves were contributing to the creation and passage of new legislation, new rules, that shifted our country. After the U.S. made the decision that it did not want to be the hegemonic power in the world, we saw the role of the West and the United States decrease. In our region, the power and interests of China and Russia are now increasing, and that has an immediate impact on democracy and what happens domestically. So Georgians were basically left feeling alone in this process to push back against massive powers and dictatorships.

Young Georgians are right now in a very difficult situation, because they are fighting desperately. Youth as young as 21 years old are imprisoned due to ongoing strife. For example, one year ago, a youth was just protesting in the street with thousands of other Georgians, and he was randomly arrested by the police. He was sentenced to four years of imprisonment despite committing no crime. So it is difficult for us, the citizens, to continue this fight for democracy without any outside support. 

All support from the United States, including USAID, the National Democratic Institute, and other American organizations, is gone. USAID was essential in providing funding and resources for people who wanted to build democracy in their own countries. All of that is gone with the Trump administration’s decision. That has left Georgia in a challenging situation where we see propaganda coming from foreign press. These foreign press coming from China, Russia, and even from inside Georgia are all trying to destroy the democracy that we have built up to now. It’s a difficult, challenging moment for us. So, for a small country like Georgia, it’s not enough to only have a people with a desire to build a democratic nation. We also need global powers to support our cause. 

Riley: You’ve been deeply involved in Georgia’s constitutional reforms, from the successful 2017-18 amendments that transitioned the nation to a Parliamentary Democracy to the failed 2019 effort to transfer to a fully proportional system by 2020. Given this experience, do you believe that state institutions are strong enough to prevent the GD from amending the constitution to codify their hold on power? Furthermore, how likely do you see this as happening?

Tamar: The ruling party, even though they very much want to amend the Constitution, our Constitution is very good in that it is very clear in stating that the future of Georgia is in integrating with the European Union and NATO. I believe the ruling party wants to remove this statement from the Constitution, but they cannot do so because it’s very difficult to amend the Constitution in the Georgian system. Constitutional amendments require a very high amount of support in the parliament and must be supported in two separate parliamentary sessions. The ruling party does not have enough members of parliament to make such a change, and I hope they will never get enough seats to amend the Constitution. So at this point, the only thing they’ve managed to capture is basically all the state institutions. The Constitutional Court is no longer independent. The Parliament cannot function effectively, but the majority is still not powerful enough to amend our constitution in a way that would allow them to delete whatever they dislike.

Aiden: I saw in an article you mentioned that the Georgian opposition could improve its effectiveness through greater unity among opposition parties and by adopting nontraditional protest methods to increase visibility. However, what stood out to me was your call for greater participation from the business sector, which has increasingly opposed the GD. How and why do you believe that business could play such a critical role in political opposition?

Tamar: I’ve been quite critical about how the opposition has handled the process, but it’s very difficult for me to speak about it right now. Most of the opposition leaders are in jail, and you cannot criticize people who are political prisoners. So I’m trying not to do that. 

As for the business sector, the political process needs money. Somebody has to fund the political competition, and the ruling party is led by a billionaire oligarch. That party has all the resources in the world. They control the entire state budget. They have a world salesperson in the country leading them, and they have all of Georgia’s major businessmen surrounding them and supporting them. Even if businesses do not really like them, businesses still have to support the ruling party because of the system. They don’t want to make enemies with the system. 

However, to have a competitive political process, someone has to fund the opposition as well. How can you oppose the ruling party, which has so many resources, if there is no funding on your side? So it is very important to find independent sources to fund campaigning. Even though it is difficult to secure this funding from the business sector, an unusual phenomenon is occurring: crowdfunding. We’ve seen people donating small amounts of what they own, even though they are not wealthy, and often lack resources themselves, but they are still contributing to the opposition’s cause. These funds are used to help political prisoners and their families. I think crowdfunding can help us in the future, not just to create political resistance, but also as a source of income and funding for the opposition. Without funding, it’s impossible to engage in a campaign and challenge the ruling party.

Riley: Moving to a more global level, Georgia stands at a unique crossroads geographically, historically, and geopolitically. It lies along both the ancient Silk Road and today’s Belt and Road Initiative, while navigating the competing influences of major powers. How can Georgia position itself as a connector politically and economically while preserving genuine strategic autonomy?

Tamar: This is difficult to do when you’re a small nation facing global powers, but we must do so. That’s the only way Georgia can maintain itself and its identity as a country of Georgians. We need to prosper as a democratic state and integrate more with the West, but we also need to be able to engage with other powers such as China. However, that can only happen if Georgia can continue to count on and retain support from the West, through the European Union and the United States. These are the only powers that would respect a small nation as an independent and sovereign country. Russia does not respect the independence or sovereignty of its neighboring smaller nations. Russia considers us as part of their territory, to which they can do whatever they want. This is why Georgia wants to be part of the West: European countries respect other nations, cultures, languages, and territories. Russia does not. The only way for Georgia to maintain its sovereignty and identity is to keep integrating with the European Union and to become a member state. While we seek to have constructive relationships with powers such as China or Russia, I don’t think this is currently possible.

Aiden: On the topic of regional stability, the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue has had significant implications for security in the South Caucasus. Do you believe this is a genuine turning point towards greater regional stability or perhaps an invitation for more great power competition in the South Caucasus?

Tamar: It is very important that the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict in the Caucasus permanently ends. This conflict has been going on for decades and has been devastating. It is impossible to focus on constructive things, such as the economy and the well-being of the people, when two of the three countries in the South Caucasus are at constant war.

A positive development that occurred was the United States’ role in striking a peace deal between the two countries. But this peace is still too fragile. We still don’t know whether this deal will last. There is still a lot of work that needs to be done for lasting peace. Anything could spark a new conflict. If a long-lasting peace is achieved, this will enable greater opportunities for the region. It would allow us to work on joint economic projects that would allow all of us in the region to become powerful forces in the future.

Riley: I’d like to talk about Ukraine for a moment. Since the invasion of Ukraine, Georgia’s geopolitical importance has sharply risen. From Zelenskyy’s initial pressure on Georgia to open a second front against Russia to the thousands of Georgian volunteers in Ukraine, these cases highlight the ties between the nations. Do you think Ukraine has become a polarizing issue in Georgian politics, and how have both political sides framed it? And finally, how do you see the outcome of the conflict in Ukraine affecting Georgia? 

Tamar: This war has had a tremendous impact on Georgia and our government. I’m ashamed of what our government did in this regard. The Georgian government has been using Russia’s devastating invasion of Ukraine for its own benefit. Basically, the central message of the Georgian government has been that Ukraine could have avoided the war if it had played smart, and it did not. So the government is blaming Ukrainians for this war instead of saying what really happened. And what really happened is that the Russians invaded Ukraine. As simple as that. There is no blame on the Ukrainian side, and no one can blame it on them, which our government shamefully does. The Georgian ruling party is trying to convince Georgian citizens that it is a good party to have in power because it will keep Georgia out of war. Because Georgians have trauma from its numerous past wars, people are really traumatized and weary of future wars. Instead of showing proper support to Ukrainians, I think that the Georgian government has been very negative, and in the most negative way has manipulated the war in Ukraine for their own benefit. That is a very shameful thing to do. 

Aiden: So it seems like there’s a very big generational divide among Georgians. Why do you think that older people drew the lessons from the wars in the 90s and the 2008 war to be highly risk-averse and not to incite another conflict? And on the other hand, why might younger people view foreign affairs from a more nationalist and revanchist perspective?

Tamar: There is definitely a national generational divide. We have one generation that was born and raised in the Soviet Union. We have another who was born and raised in an independent and democratic country. The mindsets of these people are entirely different. Young people want freedom, independence, and opportunities in their own country. They want to live like the young people across Europe, where there are many possibilities for them, where they can think what they want, and say what they want. They want the ability to make decisions and achieve success in their lives.

The older generation is driven by a fear that there is worse to come. This is something difficult to overcome, but it can only be overcome over time. Older generations have the beliefs they do about politics because they grew up in a dictatorship, where this was the normal state of affairs. They were also victims of constant conflicts and wars, so it’s very difficult to convince them to change their mindset because that is what they grew up with. 

For the young people, though, it’s hard to get used to the idea that they should have no opportunities or freedom. Unfortunately, in their own homeland, the only way to find a better life is to escape, go somewhere else, and run away to start a new life. That’s our dilemma. However, the future is still with Georgia’s youth. Young people are always the future. The law is always with young people, so I think they will prevail.

Aiden: I wanted to ask a little bit about the foreign agents law passed last year that drew close comparisons to similar laws in Russia and Belarus. This law has significantly restricted the ability of civil society institutions to function. I would like to know if you see this event as a watershed moment, codifying a shift in foreign policy toward Russia, or as part of a continuing trend of closer ties to Russia?

Tamar: It was definitely a very significant moment, but it was one piece in a longer chain of developments. The foreign agents law is a terrible invention of Russia, enabling the government to label anyone who is a critic of the regime as agents of foreign countries. One of the fellows at Yale is from Russia, and he has been labeled by the Russian government as a foreign agent under a similar law. This law is an instrument to silence and demonize people. Many claim the government has political prisoners, that it’s not good to have them, and that it’s not good to send young people to jail for nothing. Those people are then denounced as foreign agents. Instead of accepting the truth, these regimes, through this terrible piece of legislation, dehumanize people who try to speak the truth.

The initial attempts to pass this law sparked a huge public outcry. Major protests prevented the government from enacting the law for over a year. But now it’s been enacted. It is one piece of a broader government strategy to drift away from the West and bring Georgia closer to Russia. Georgian civil society had been receiving funding from international organizations for nearly three decades, including the European Union and USAID. German and Swedish funds were crucial in the past, but under this foreign agents law we can receive this funding only with the Georgian government’s permission. So imagine that you’re seeking funding for a project that is pursuing anti-corruption work or helping political prisoners in Georgia. You’d need funds for that. The government says you can’t receive that funding without their permission. The government would never enable anyone to receive funds for work that would expose their corruption or other wrongdoings. It has eliminated civil society organizations, especially government watchdogs. 

Riley: One final question: looking ahead, what gives you the most confidence in Georgia’s political future? What should the next generation of global leaders understand about the challenges of small state governance? 

Tamar: Even though the developments are very adverse at this stage, I see this whole ordeal as a process. Throughout Georgian history, the country has fallen and risen and fallen and risen again. I see this current ordeal as another stage, a difficult period for us, but one from which we will find our way out. The primary source of hope for us in the region is that the people just do not want to spend their lives under a single dictator and are fighting to reclaim their dignity and freedom. Unfortunately, political parties and processes have not been able to channel the public’s will into real political and governmental change.

However, what is essential is that Georgia should be taken as a lesson not just for small countries, but for bigger nations as well. This conflict began due to rising polarization. Everything started with the spread of lies used to divide society, so people refuse to talk to each other or communicate opposing opinions. The polarization and hatred are a product of the propaganda machinery of state television and foreign sources, especially the influence of Russia and China. Those actors can divide society in a dramatic and very negative way. When it comes to democratic institutions, there are some signs that people have to watch for: any attack on the judicial system is very dangerous, and polarization is very dangerous. So I hope Georgia’s present situation can serve as a lesson for other nations to identify and detect those worrisome traits in their early stages and then eliminate them.

“Aiden Wasserman is the President of Boston Risk Group, a student-led initiative at Tufts University providing pro bono research support to NGOs, Embassies, NGOs, and Think Tanks on a variety of geopolitical issues. You can find out more about BRG here.”

This summer, the United States made history. On July 18, Congress signed into law the GENIUS Act, the first major crypto legislation in the nation. What makes this moment remarkable is how quickly the nation’s sentiment on cryptocurrencies has shifted, especially within government. In 2013, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan expressed deep skepticism about Bitcoin, saying, “You really have to stretch your imagination to infer what the intrinsic value of Bitcoin is.” Today, by contrast, the sitting U.S. president is promising to make the United States the “crypto capital of the planet.”

This shift is not only visible in the United States. In 2024, the European Union implemented the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework, establishing rules for stablecoins, disclosures, and market practices across all member countries. These new legislative efforts represent a legitimization of cryptocurrencies in major economies around the world. Cryptocurrencies are no longer fringe, they are being integrated into the legal and financial infrastructure of the world’s largest economies.

But years before these efforts to regulate and integrate crypto, El Salvador made a far more radical move. In 2021, it became the first country in the world to adopt Bitcoin as legal tender. By 2024, however, this experiment was significantly scaled back through a $1.4 billion loan agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which included provisions that revoked Bitcoin’s official status for tax payments and made its use by businesses voluntary. As crypto becomes a serious policy issue for major nations, what lessons can be drawn from El Salvador’s high-risk, low-readiness experiment?

The Lead Up 

El Salvador’s young and bold president, Nayib Bukele, saw Bitcoin as a tool to modernize the economy and expand financial access. At the time, over 70 percent of Salvadorans lacked access to traditional banking services. Bitcoin was pitched as a solution to this gap, offering digital wallets and financial tools to those excluded from the banking system.

Another motivation was to lower remittance costs. In 2021, approximately 22 percent of El Salvador’s GDP came from remittances, largely sent from the United States. Bitcoin was seen as a way to reduce transfer fees, speed up transactions, and keep more money in the hands of recipients.

Beyond solving existing problems, Bukele envisioned building a tech-forward economy. He announced plans for Bitcoin City, a futuristic, tax-free city powered by geothermal energy from the Conchagua volcano. The city would attract foreign investment, support crypto startups, and issue “volcano bonds” to finance its development. 

What Went Wrong? 

The law was relatively easy to pass. Bukele’s party and its allies held a supermajority in the Legislative Assembly. The legislation was sweeping: all economic agents, unless lacking the necessary technology, were required to accept Bitcoin. Taxes could be paid in Bitcoin, and government subsidies were distributed in the cryptocurrency.

To support its rollout, the government introduced Chivo, a digital wallet app designed to make Bitcoin transactions accessible for everyday use. As an incentive, citizens who downloaded the app received $30 worth of Bitcoin. The government also installed hundreds of Bitcoin ATMs nationwide to make conversion into U.S. dollars easier. 

El Salvador experienced some early wins. In the first few months, crypto-based remittances rose, making up 4.5 percent of all inflows. However, this momentum did not last. By December 2024, cryptocurrency-linked remittances had declined to just 0.87 percent. Adoption of the Chivo wallet followed a similar trend. According to Bukele, three million people downloaded the app, roughly 46 percent of the population. But usage dropped significantly once the $30 bonus was spent. Fewer than 20 percent of users remained active. The average user made no Bitcoin transactions per month and only one U.S. dollar payment on average. 

Among those who chose not to download Chivo, the most common reasons were a preference for cash and a lack of trust in the system. Many users expressed concern over privacy and surveillance, saying Bitcoin transactions could be tracked, unlike cash. Others reported technical problems or feared volatility. 

These concerns were visible even before implementation. A poll conducted by Universidad Centroamericana José Simeón Cañas found that nearly 68 percent of Salvadorans opposed adopting Bitcoin as legal tender. Eight in ten said they did not trust the digital currency, and nine in ten said they did not fully understand it. This distrust was compounded by basic access issues: according to the World Bank, only 62 percent of Salvadorans were using the internet in 2021. The country’s rollout strategy did little to engage the public or prepare them for such a major shift. 

The IMF Deal and Rollback 

In 2024, the Salvadoran government secured a $1.4 billion loan agreement with the IMF, which came with significant policy conditions. These included changes to the Bitcoin Law: Bitcoin could no longer be used to pay taxes, and businesses were no longer required to accept it. These rollbacks marked a shift from mandatory, aggressive implementation to more voluntary and symbolic adoption. 

Still, the government has not entirely abandoned its crypto ambitions. President Bukele announced an $83 million profit from the country’s Bitcoin holdings, bolstered by market appreciation. Although the government has announced the sale of Chivo, Bitcoin ATMs remain in place, and the vision for Bitcoin City has not been officially abandoned.

What Can be Learned? 

El Salvador’s Bitcoin experiment underscores the challenges of adopting digital currencies without adequate public readiness, infrastructure, or trust. While the motivations behind the move, financial inclusion, remittance reform, and economic innovation, were valid and even admirable, the implementation was rapid and imposed from the top down. The disconnect between policy and public sentiment ultimately limited its impact. 

The United States and other major economies should take note. A 2023 Pew Research study found that 63 percent of Americans have “little to no confidence that current ways to invest in, trade, or use cryptocurrencies are reliable and safe,” and only 17 percent of adults report ever having used them. These figures suggest that public trust and understanding remain major hurdles, even in highly developed economies. 

If the United States truly aims to become the “crypto capital of the planet,” legislation alone will not be enough. Policymakers must also invest in public education, regulatory clarity, consumer protection, and infrastructure. Adoption should be careful, incremental, and democratic. 

El Salvador’s story should not be dismissed as a failure. It was a bold experiment that offered real lessons about timing, trust, and readiness. As the world moves further into the digital currency era, these lessons will only grow more relevant. 

Featured/Headline Image Caption and Citation: Bitcoin, Image sourced from The Central American Group | CC License, no changes made

In Vatican City, the home of the Roman Catholic Church and among the holiest sites in the Christian world, representatives from the world’s leading technological, legal, academic, and business sectors gathered for the Second Annual Rome Conference on AI, Ethics, and the Future of Corporate Governance. The goal: to discuss and reflect on the ethical challenges posed by artificial intelligence and explore its implications for the future of not only business, but society as a whole. Through roundtable discussions, panels, and fireside chats, industry leaders and experts were given a chance to engage in important dialogue about the rising use of AI in governance and business. 

During this conference, the newly elected Pope, Pope Leo XIV, delivered an address framing AI as not only a technological concern but also a moral and spiritual one. He called for attendees to “consider AI within the context of the necessary intergenerational apprenticeship that will enable young people to integrate truth into their moral and spiritual life,” expressing concern about AI’s hindrance on children’s ability to learn and possess an “authentic wisdom” that “has more to do with recognizing the true meaning of life than with the availability of data.” 

Arguably, Pope Leo XIV’s address was one of the first major public acts of his papacy to assert the moral authority of the Church on a pressing global issue. While the Vatican wields no formal political power, its ability to guide conscience and shape international norms through soft power is how it has remained one of the most influential institutions in the world. 

The 2025 Conference 

Founded in 2024 by Wilson Sonsini and Libra Legal Partners, the Rome Conference on AI, Ethics, and The Future Corporate Governance invites some of the biggest industry names. This year’s conference was attended by leaders from Meta, Google, and Open AI in addition to academics from prestigious institutions such as Harvard and Stanford Law. 

Key themes of this year’s conference included the transformation of corporate governance, the integration of ethical oversight into AI development, and the importance of public-private dialogue on accountability and human dignity. What differentiated this conference from similar ones was the uniquely religious setting and influence surrounding it. Pope Leo XIV explicitly expressed his and the Church’s “desire to participate in these discussions that directly affect the present and future of our human family.” While technological meetings like this generally sidestep moral dimensions, this gathering explicitly foregrounded language of conscience and purpose. 

Why the Vatican and AI? 

At first glance, it may seem unlikely that major players in the technology and AI sectors would listen to, or even care about, the opinions of the head of one of the world’s oldest religions. However, the Vatican’s ties to science and ethics have been prominent over the years, with multiple addresses and writings such as Pope John Paul II’s 1991 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, in which he stressed the need for ethical guidance in genetic research. 

A particularly impactful moment came in with the release of Laudato Si’, the late Pope Francis’s landmark encyclical on environmental ethics, which encouraged worldwide collaboration in creating sustainable development to face environmental challenges. Laudato Si’ was released just months before the adoption of the Paris Agreement, an international treaty on climate change in which Vatican City participated as an observer state, shaping the moral framing of the negotiations and signaling the Vatican’s active engagement in global climate discourse. 

More recently, in the realm of AI, the Vatican led the creation of the Rome Call for AI Ethics in 2020 with the objective of promoting “an ethical sense of shared responsibility among international organizations, governments, institutions and the private sector.” Major corporations such as Qualcomm and Microsoft have become signatories, and although the Call is not legally binding, it provides a valuable moral framework. 

The impact of Laudato Si’ and the Rome Call for AI Ethics highlights the Vatican’s ability to influence global policy not through legal authority, but by providing an ethical framework and exerting soft power. 

The Moral Voice in the Technological World 

This year’s Rome Conference on AI, Ethics, and the Future of Corporate Governance demonstrated that the Vatican continues to wield meaningful soft power in the worlds of science and technology. But as artificial intelligence advances at a staggering pace, a pressing question remains: can the Vatican, or anyone interested in AI ethics, truly keep up? As psychologist and AI researcher David D. Luxton, PhD, observes, “‘AI is moving so fast that it’s difficult to grasp how significantly it’s going to change things.’” When the scale and direction of change are hard to even grasp, how can we form coherent opinions, mobilize conferences, or organize ethical frameworks and guardrails in time to respond? 

Though the Vatican was able to assert influence and help shape the adoption of the Paris Agreement, we have yet to see a binding international agreement for AI that matches its scope or force. Without a shared global framework, ethical commitments on AI remain fragmented. Non-binding, unenforceable commitments offer limited impact. The Vatican’s efforts underscore the urgent need to enforce international cooperation before technology outpaces our ability to govern it. The question now is whether, once again, the Vatican can rise to the moment and help facilitate a formal binding agreement as it did in 2015, or whether the acceleration of AI will leave the historic institution and its influence behind.

Featured/Headline Image Caption and Citation: Pope Leo XIV, Image sourced from Heute | CC License, no changes made