Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The U.S. Is Rushing To Make AI Deals With Gulf Countries, But Who Will Help Keep Children Safe?

Opinion

The U.S. Is Rushing To Make AI Deals With Gulf Countries, But Who Will Help Keep Children Safe?

A child's hand holding an adult's hand.

Getty Images, LaylaBird

As the United States deepens its investments in artificial intelligence (AI) partnerships abroad, it is moving fast — signing deals, building labs, and exporting tools. Recently, President Donald Trump announced sweeping AI collaborations with Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. These agreements, worth billions, are being hailed as historic moments for digital diplomacy and technological leadership.

But amid the headlines and handshakes, I keep asking the same question: where is child protection in all of this?


As someone who has worked across the Middle East and North Africa on children’s rights and protection, I have seen how fast-moving technologies can amplify harm when ethical safeguards are missing. In countries where digital regulation is still evolving and where vulnerable communities already fall through the cracks, introducing powerful AI tools without clear protections is not innovation, it's a risk.

And yet, these deals are being signed without a single line publicly dedicated to the safety of children, the protection of personal data, or the prevention of exploitation.

The MENA region is home to more than 100 million children, many of whom live in contexts shaped by displacement, economic hardship, or legal invisibility. The digital world, once imagined as a safe space for learning and connection, has also become a space where grooming, abuse, and trafficking happen at alarming speed.

The INTERPOL report from 2020 warned that during COVID-19, online child sexual exploitation surged. Isolation, lack of oversight, and increased internet use created the perfect conditions for harm, and we still have not caught up.

Now, imagine adding AI to this landscape of facial recognition, predictive policing, and machine learning systems in countries that are still building their legal frameworks. Who decides how these systems are used? Who is responsible if they misidentify, exclude, or endanger a child?

This isn’t a critique of progress. The Gulf region is making major investments in tech, education, and infrastructure and that can bring real opportunities. But when the U.S. exports technology without including rights-based standards, it is exporting risk.

In all the official announcements, I’ve yet to see mention of child rights impact assessments, ethical use policies, safeguarding conditions, or civil society consultations. These are not extras. These are not nice-to-haves. They are essentials.

The U.S. cannot claim global leadership in AI while staying silent on the ethical standards that must accompany it. If it can include economic terms in these deals, it can also include human rights terms. If it can prioritize national security, it can also prioritize child safety.

Before the next deal is signed, child protection needs to be on the table, not as an afterthought, but as a requirement. We need binding commitments to data privacy and safety, independent oversight mechanisms, and a voice for child rights organizations in the negotiation process — because children will live with the consequences of these technologies even though they were never consulted.

We cannot allow powerful tools to be exchanged between governments without also exchanging responsibility. AI may be the future but if it doesn’t protect children, it’s a future built on omission.

And we’ve already seen what that costs.

Hassan Tabikh is a human rights practitioner from Baalbek, Lebanon, with over a decade of experience in human rights, social justice, and child protection across the MENA region. He is the MENA Regional Coordinator at ECPAT International and a Public Voices Fellow on Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse with The OpEd Project.


Read More

What Really Guides Lawmakers’ Decisions on Capitol Hill
us a flag on white concrete building

What Really Guides Lawmakers’ Decisions on Capitol Hill

The following article is excerpted from "Citizen’s Handbook for Influencing Elected Officials."

Despite the efforts of high school social studies teachers, parents, journalists, and political scientists, the workings of our government remain a mystery to most Americans. Caricatures, misconceptions, and stereotypes dominate citizens’ views of Congress, contributing to our reluctance to engage in our democracy. In reality, the system works pretty much as we were taught in third grade. Congress is far more like Schoolhouse Rock than House of Cards. When all the details are burned away, legislators generally follow three voices when making a decision. One member of Congress called these voices the “Three H’s”: Heart, Head, and Health—meaning political health.

Keep ReadingShow less
Illustration of someone holding a strainer, and the words "fakes," "facts," "news," etc. going through it.

Trump-era misinformation has pushed American politics to a breaking point. A Truth in Politics law may be needed to save democracy.

Getty Images, SvetaZi

The Need for a Truth in Politics Law: De-Frauding American Politics

“Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” With those words in 1954, Army lawyer Joseph Welch took Senator Joe McCarthy to task and helped end McCarthy’s destructive un-American witch hunt. The time has come to say the same to Donald Trump and his MAGA allies and stop their vile perversion of our right to free speech.

American politics has always been rife with misleading statements and, at times, outright falsehoods. Mendacity just seems to be an ever-present aspect of politics. But with the ascendency of Trump, and especially this past year, things have taken an especially nasty turn, becoming so aggressive and incendiary as to pose a real threat to the health and well-being of our nation’s democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
Silence, Signals, and the Unfinished Story of the Abandoned Disability Rule

Waiting for the Door to Open: Advocates and older workers are left in limbo as the administration’s decision to abandon a harsh disability rule exists only in private assurances, not public record.

AI-created animation

Silence, Signals, and the Unfinished Story of the Abandoned Disability Rule

We reported in the Fulcrum on November 30th that in early November, disability advocates walked out of the West Wing, believing they had secured a rare reversal from the Trump administration of an order that stripped disability benefits from more than 800,000 older manual laborers.

The public record has remained conspicuously quiet on the matter. No press release, no Federal Register notice, no formal statement from the White House or the Social Security Administration has confirmed what senior officials told Jason Turkish and his colleagues behind closed doors in November: that the administration would not move forward with a regulation that could have stripped disability benefits from more than 800,000 older manual laborers. According to a memo shared by an agency official and verified by multiple sources with knowledge of the discussions, an internal meeting in early November involved key SSA decision-makers outlining the administration's intent to halt the proposal. This memo, though not publicly released, is said to detail the political and social ramifications of proceeding with the regulation, highlighting its unpopularity among constituents who would be affected by the changes.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

A memorial for Ashli Babbitt sits near the US Capitol during a Day of Remembrance and Action on the one year anniversary of the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

(John Lamparski/NurPhoto/AP)

How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

In the wake of the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump quickly took up the cause of a 35-year-old veteran named Ashli Babbitt.

“Who killed Ashli Babbitt?” he asked in a one-sentence statement on July 1, 2021.

Keep ReadingShow less