According to Financial Times News, OpenAI has hired former UK Chancellor George Osborne to lead its new “OpenAI for Countries” initiative, an overseas expansion of its massive $500bn “Stargate” data center project. Osborne, who will start the job in January and be based in London, is tasked with deploying AI with foreign governments, from infrastructure to education. The move comes just a month after rival AI firm Anthropic appointed another former Conservative Chancellor and Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, as an adviser in October. OpenAI has already struck deals in the UK and United Arab Emirates and says it’s in talks with 50 countries about developing “sovereign AI.” The company frames Stargate, announced at a White House event earlier this year with partners like SoftBank’s Masayoshi Son, as a way to ensure American companies and “democratic principles” form the foundation of global AI.
The Political Play
Here’s the thing: hiring George Osborne isn’t really about his tech expertise. It’s a pure political and regulatory maneuver. OpenAI‘s Chief Global Affairs Officer, Chris Lehane, explicitly compared this to the 1944 Bretton Woods conference that created the modern monetary system. That’s not a casual analogy. They’re trying to frame the rules of the AI game now, before anyone else does, and they want those rules to be “American” and “democratic.” But is that just a branding exercise for what’s essentially a commercial land grab? Probably. By embedding their infrastructure and models with governments, they’re creating immense lock-in. It’s a brilliant, if cynical, strategy: become the indispensable “democratic” alternative to China, and in doing so, corner the market.
The Stargate Reality Check
Let’s talk about that $500bn “Stargate” number for a second. It’s astronomical. And OpenAI is, by its own admission, a loss-making company. So where does all that money come from? Partners like SoftBank and Oracle, sure. But this scale of spending on data centers is fueling very real concerns about a financial bubble in AI infrastructure. They’re betting the company—and asking investors to bet billions—on a future demand for AI compute that hasn’t fully materialized yet. It’s a huge, risky capital expenditure race. And now they’re layering on a global diplomatic sales job on top of it. The pressure on Osborne to turn these government “conversations” into concrete, revenue-generating deals will be immense from day one.
Osborne’s Baggage and Balance Sheet
George Osborne is a fascinating and somewhat controversial choice. In the UK, he’s still best known as the architect of a severe austerity program. Now he’s going to work for a company engaged in the most extreme capital spending spree imaginable. The irony is thick. He’s also a classic “former politician” portfolio guy: newspaper editor, BlackRock adviser, investment bank partner, British Museum chair, and even a crypto adviser at Coinbase (where OpenAI’s Chris Lehane is also on the board). He literally just lost out on becoming HSBC’s chair. So is this his next big thing, or just another line on a very crowded resume? OpenAI is getting a well-connected operator, but one whose policy legacy is divisive. Selling “democratic” AI with that background might be a harder pitch in some capitals than they think.
The “Sovereign AI” Tightrope
OpenAI says its deals will bake in “democratic principles” like free speech and free markets, and prevent mass government data collection. That sounds great in a press release. But in practice, it’s a minefield. What happens when a “partner” government wants to use OpenAI’s sovereign AI tools for surveillance or censorship? Does OpenAI walk away from the deal and the revenue? Their entire “for Countries” model depends on them being a trusted, neutral platform provider. But in the messy real world of geopolitics, true neutrality is impossible. They’re trying to have it both ways: be a commercial vendor to states while also being the moral guardian of how the tech is used. I’m skeptical that balance can hold. This feels less like Bretton Woods and more like a high-stakes gamble that they can out-lobby and out-build everyone else before the contradictions catch up with them.
