Critical infrastructure

UN Global Mechanism on ICT security begins translating cyber norms into practice

The UN’s permanent cyber mechanism has begun shifting from identifying cyber threats towards implementing the international commitments already agreed by member states, with delegations broadly calling for practical action under the existing UN framework for responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.

During the fourth meeting of the first substantive session of the Global Mechanism on Developments in the Field of ICTs in the Context of International Security, member states concluded discussions on the evolving cyber threat landscape before turning their attention to the implementation of the 11 voluntary and non-binding norms first agreed by the UN Group of Governmental Experts in 2015.

While views differed on whether additional norms may eventually be required, a broad range of delegations agreed that the immediate priority should be helping countries apply the existing framework through practical cooperation, capacity development, and exchanges of national experience.

From agreement to implementation

The discussion reflected a broader evolution in international cyber diplomacy.

Rather than negotiating new principles, many delegations argued that the Global Mechanism should now concentrate on translating existing commitments into national legislation, operational practices, and international cooperation.

The Pacific Islands Forum, speaking through Tonga, noted that many countries, particularly small island developing states, are still developing the institutional and technical capacity needed to implement the agreed norms. It called for the mechanism to support this work through practical guidance, peer learning, and contributions from technical experts, regional organisations, academia, civil society, and the private sector.

The European Union similarly presented an overview of how its member states are implementing the norms through legislation, institutional arrangements, and operational cooperation, encouraging other countries to share their own experiences. The EU also described the Dedicated Thematic Groups (DTGs) as the appropriate forum for developing practical approaches linked to specific cybersecurity challenges.

Existing norms remain the foundation

Many delegations stressed that the 11 voluntary norms continue to provide a sufficient framework for responsible state behaviour.

Countries, including the Republic of Korea, Vanuatu, Portugal, Botswana, Nigeria, Ireland, New Zealand, and Costa Rica, argued that implementation should take precedence over negotiating additional commitments.

Several delegations highlighted the voluntary implementation checklist developed through previous UN processes as a practical tool for helping governments assess progress and exchange good practices. Others suggested that publishing national implementation experiences could improve transparency and strengthen mutual confidence.

Capacity development emerged as a recurring theme throughout the discussion, with many speakers emphasising that successful implementation depends on strengthening national institutions, technical expertise, incident response capabilities, and regional cooperation.

Some states support further normative development

Although implementation attracted broad support, several delegations argued that the framework should continue evolving alongside technological change.

China, Morocco, Armenia, Thailand, Brazil, Iran, and Cuba suggested that emerging issues, including AI, data security, supply chain resilience, and new forms of cyber activity, may eventually require additional voluntary norms or, in some cases, legally binding international instruments.

Rather than presenting these approaches as mutually exclusive, several countries argued that implementation and discussions on possible future norms could proceed in parallel, provided decisions continue to be reached through consensus.

Threat discussions reinforce implementation priorities

Before moving to the norms agenda, delegations completed their discussion on the evolving cyber threat landscape.

Countries highlighted ransomware, attacks on critical infrastructure, AI, disinformation, supply chain vulnerabilities, and cybercrime as continuing challenges requiring closer international cooperation.

Ghana described efforts to strengthen the protection of critical information infrastructure following the disruption caused by damage to a submarine cable, while Pakistan warned that cyber threats are increasingly intertwined with geopolitical competition and emerging technologies. Institutional participants, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, Interpol, and the African Union, contributed perspectives on cyber operations during armed conflict, organised cybercrime, and the importance of strengthening cyber resilience across developing countries.

Summarising the discussion, the Chair highlighted recurring calls for greater information sharing, cooperation, capacity development, incident response, and resilience, noting that these priorities would help shape the future work of the mechanism.

Dedicated Thematic Groups move to the centre of the process

Throughout the session, delegations repeatedly pointed to the Dedicated Thematic Groups as the mechanism’s primary vehicle for turning broad political agreement into practical cooperation.

States proposed using the groups to exchange implementation experiences, discuss specific cyber challenges, develop scenario-based exercises, refine the voluntary implementation checklist, and strengthen cooperation across the five pillars of the UN cyber framework.

Alongside these substantive discussions, several rights of reply reflected wider geopolitical tensions among some member states. However, the majority of interventions remained focused on practical implementation and strengthening the shared framework for responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.

The session, therefore, marked an important transition for the Global Mechanism. Having identified many of the principal cyber threats facing states, delegations increasingly turned their attention to the practical question of how existing international commitments can be translated into national action and international cooperation.

Track all key moments from the First substantive session of the UN Global Mechanism on cybersecurity on our dedicated page.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

UN Global Mechanism on ICT security shifts towards practical cybersecurity cooperation

The UN’s permanent cyber mechanism continued its substantive discussions by identifying shared priorities for international cooperation, with member states highlighting ransomware, AI, critical infrastructure protection, and capacity development as areas requiring practical action.

During the third plenary of the first substantive session of the Global Mechanism on Developments in the Field of ICTs in the Context of International Security, delegations repeatedly stressed that discussions should move beyond mere description of cyber threats to developing practical tools to help states prevent, detect, and respond to them.

The discussion reinforced a trend already visible during earlier meetings, that despite differing national perspectives on specific cyber incidents, broad agreement is emerging on the issues likely to shape the mechanism’s future work.

From identifying threats to supporting implementation

Several delegations argued that the mechanism’s success should be measured by its ability to translate years of international negotiations into practical cooperation.

Kiribati captured this approach by observing that discussions on cyber threats should not end with mere descriptions but lead to concrete measures that enable countries of all sizes to strengthen their cyber resilience. Cameroon and Morocco similarly encouraged the mechanism to prioritise practical implementation through the Dedicated Thematic Groups (DTGs), which are expected to become the forum’s primary venue for detailed technical cooperation.

The emphasis on implementation reflected a broader shift from developing international norms towards helping governments apply them in practice through information sharing, capacity development, and operational cooperation.

Critical infrastructure protection gains momentum

Protection of critical infrastructure emerged as one of the strongest areas of convergence during the session.

Small island developing states offered particularly compelling examples of how digital infrastructure has become essential for national resilience. Kiribati described how its first submarine cable has transformed public services while simultaneously increasing its exposure to cyber risks. Tonga recalled the 2022 volcanic eruption that severed its only submarine cable, leaving the country isolated during a national emergency, and warned that a malicious cyber operation could deliberately produce similar consequences.

Delegations from Australia, Tuvalu, Chile, Ghana, Zimbabwe, and other countries similarly highlighted the growing importance of protecting undersea cables, telecommunications infrastructure, government networks, and other critical systems that underpin economic activity and essential public services.

Rather than treating these as purely national concerns, speakers increasingly framed critical infrastructure resilience as a shared international challenge requiring cooperation across borders.

Ransomware remains a global priority

Ransomware was once again identified as one of the most significant cyber threats facing governments and critical services worldwide.

Delegations described attacks affecting healthcare systems, humanitarian organisations, government institutions, municipalities, telecommunications providers, and energy infrastructure.

National experiences illustrated the scale of the challenge. Tonga described how a ransomware attack encrypted its national health information system, forcing hospitals to return temporarily to paper records. Germany cited estimates placing annual cyber-related economic damage at approximately US$230 billion, while several countries highlighted the growing sophistication and transnational nature of ransomware operations.

Many speakers emphasised that responding effectively will require stronger international information sharing, coordinated incident response, public-private cooperation, and support for countries with more limited cybersecurity capacities.

AI increasingly shapes cybersecurity discussions

AI continued to feature prominently throughout the session as delegations examined its growing influence on the cyber threat landscape.

Countries from different regions observed that AI is lowering barriers to entry for malicious actors while increasing the speed and sophistication of cyber operations. Among the risks identified were AI-generated phishing campaigns, automated vulnerability discovery, deepfakes, large-scale disinformation, and attacks targeting AI systems themselves.

Several delegations also pointed to emerging challenges related to frontier AI models, quantum computing, commercial cyber intrusion capabilities, and digital supply chain security, suggesting these issues should continue to receive attention within the Global Mechanism.

While views differed on how these developments should be governed internationally, there was broad agreement that the mechanism provides an important forum for exchanging experience and improving collective understanding of rapidly evolving technologies.

Capacity development remains central to cyber resilience

Developing countries consistently stressed that discussions on cyber threats should be matched by practical support.

Delegations highlighted the importance of strengthening national institutions, expanding technical expertise, improving incident response capabilities, and ensuring that developing countries can participate fully in the mechanism’s work.

Small island developing states noted that limited resources often magnify the consequences of cyber incidents, while African, Asian, Caribbean, and Pacific countries called for sustainable, demand-driven capacity-building programmes tailored to national priorities. Several speakers also encouraged greater regional cooperation and more structured exchanges of operational experience.

These interventions reinforced the view that improving global cybersecurity depends not only on reducing threats but also on ensuring that all countries have the capabilities needed to address them.

Dedicated Thematic Groups move into focus

Attention also turned to the role of the Dedicated Thematic Groups as the mechanism’s principal vehicle for translating discussions into practical outcomes.

Delegations proposed using the groups for scenario-based discussions, expert briefings, exchanges of operational experience, and the development of practical recommendations on issues such as critical infrastructure protection, supply chain security, ransomware, and implementation of agreed voluntary norms. Several countries argued that the groups should focus on a limited number of concrete priorities that could produce measurable results.

Alongside these substantive discussions, some delegations continued to express differing views regarding state attribution of cyber incidents and recent geopolitical developments. While these exchanges reflected broader international tensions, the majority of interventions remained focused on strengthening cooperation within the Global Mechanism and identifying practical areas where progress can be achieved.

As the session concluded, the Chair confirmed that discussions would continue with the remaining speakers before the mechanism moved to its next agenda item on voluntary norms for responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.

Track all key moments from the First substantive session of the UN Global Mechanism on cybersecurity on our dedicated page.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

UN Global Mechanism on ICT security identifies ransomware and AI among key global cyber threats

The UN’s new permanent mechanism on international cybersecurity shifted from organisational discussions to substantive exchanges on the evolving cyber threat landscape, with member states identifying ransomware, attacks on critical infrastructure, and the malicious use of AI among the most pressing challenges requiring international cooperation.

Meeting during the first substantive plenary session of the Global Mechanism on Developments in the Field of ICTs in the Context of International Security, delegates also continued discussions on the organisation of the mechanism’s Dedicated Thematic Groups (DTGs), which are expected to play a central role in translating years of normative work into practical cooperation.

While delegations expressed different views on some procedural aspects of the DTGs, there was broad agreement that the groups should focus on practical, action-oriented work and avoid duplicating discussions already taking place during the annual plenary sessions.

Dedicated Thematic Groups take shape

Several delegations described the DTGs as one of the Global Mechanism’s most important innovations, providing an opportunity for more detailed discussions than are possible during formal plenary meetings.

Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Kiribati and New Zealand encouraged the groups to concentrate on a limited number of priority topics capable of producing practical recommendations. Germany similarly proposed focusing on thematically coherent issues, including ransomware and the protection of critical infrastructure, while ensuring that discussions ultimately feed back into the plenary through concrete recommendations.

A recurring message throughout the discussion was that the mechanism should now move from establishing common principles towards supporting their implementation. Several delegations cautioned that attempting to address too many issues simultaneously could reduce the effectiveness of the DTGs, advocating a focused approach instead during their first biennium.

Delegations also highlighted the importance of maintaining predictable working methods, ensuring meaningful participation by all regions, and enabling smaller countries to contribute effectively throughout the process.

Broad support for stakeholder expertise

Another recurring theme was the value of involving technical expertise in DTG work.

Countries from different regions highlighted the contributions that academia, the private sector, civil society, and technical organisations can make to understanding rapidly evolving cyber threats and supporting the implementation of agreed commitments.

Oman stressed that governments alone cannot access all relevant technical knowledge, while Argentina called for transparent and predictable arrangements for stakeholder participation. France argued that cybersecurity requires cooperation across different communities, describing cyber diplomacy as a ‘team sport’. The African Group likewise recognised that expertise from non-state actors complements the intergovernmental character of the mechanism.

Many delegations also underlined that meaningful stakeholder engagement would be particularly valuable during the more interactive discussions planned within the thematic groups.

Ransomware and critical infrastructure emerge as shared priorities

As discussions moved to the evolving cyber threat landscape, a strong degree of convergence emerged across regions.

Ransomware was consistently identified as one of the most significant threats facing governments, businesses, and societies. Delegations pointed to attacks affecting healthcare, public administration, financial services, energy systems, telecommunications, and other essential services.

Several countries drew on national experience to illustrate the impact of such incidents. Costa Rica referred to the disruption caused by major ransomware attacks in 2022, while Ireland highlighted the effects of the 2021 cyberattack on its health service. Singapore noted that nearly 8,000 ransomware incidents were publicly reported worldwide during 2025, underlining the increasingly transnational nature of the threat.

The protection of critical infrastructure also emerged as a common concern. Delegations discussed the resilience of healthcare systems, government services, energy networks, transport infrastructure, telecommunications, and undersea cables, with several suggesting these issues should become early priorities for the DTGs.

AI reshapes the cyber threat landscape

The malicious use of AI featured prominently throughout the session, with delegations from all regions describing its growing impact on cybersecurity.

Countries warned that AI is accelerating the speed and sophistication of cyber operations while lowering barriers to entry for malicious actors. Among the concerns raised were AI-enabled phishing campaigns, automated vulnerability discovery, deepfakes, synthetic media, disinformation, and attacks targeting AI systems themselves.

Several delegations also pointed to emerging challenges, including quantum computing, post-quantum cryptography, commercial spyware, and increasingly sophisticated cybercrime ecosystems. While views differed on whether these developments require new international norms, there was broad recognition that the mechanism should continue examining their implications within its existing mandate.

Capacity building remains central for developing countries

Capacity building remained a cross-cutting priority throughout the session, particularly for developing countries and small island developing states.

The African Group called for practical implementation of existing capacity-building initiatives, including the ICT security cooperation portal, fellowship programmes, and the global network of national points of contact. Other delegations highlighted regional initiatives aimed to strengthening resilience, improving cyber hygiene, and supporting national institutions.

Small island developing states added an important practical perspective to the discussion. Vanuatu described how cyber resilience has become closely linked to disaster preparedness, while Nauru observed that countries connecting to the internet today immediately face the full spectrum of contemporary cyber threats rather than encountering them gradually over time.

The session concluded with the Chair confirming that consultations on the DTGs would continue ahead of their first meetings in December. While some organisational questions remain under discussion, the exchanges demonstrated growing convergence on the substantive issues likely to shape the mechanism’s future work, particularly ransomware, critical infrastructure protection, AI-enabled threats, and strengthening cyber capacity across all regions.

Track all key moments from the First substantive session of the UN Global Mechanism on cybersecurity on our dedicated page.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

China and Thailand launch AI weather forecasting laboratory

China and Thailand have launched a joint laboratory dedicated to applying AI to meteorological disaster forecasting and early warning, aiming to strengthen climate resilience and support cross-border infrastructure and economic cooperation.

Announced during a meteorological sub-forum of the 2026 World AI Conference and High-Level Meeting on Global AI Governance in Shanghai, the initiative will support disaster forecasting while providing meteorological services for cross-border projects in sectors including energy, agriculture and infrastructure.

Described as the world’s first bilateral laboratory dedicated to AI applications in meteorology, it will develop intelligent early warning technologies for hazards including typhoons, heavy rainfall, heatwaves and droughts. The collaboration builds on the China Meteorological Administration’s MAZU intelligent early warning system.

The laboratory will bring together more than 40 researchers specialising in atmospheric science, AI, power systems, agricultural meteorology and regional cooperation. By combining expertise across these fields, the partners aim to improve forecasting accuracy and strengthen preparedness for shared climate risks.

The partnership reflects the growing role of AI in climate resilience and disaster risk management while highlighting increasing international cooperation on applying AI to environmental monitoring and critical infrastructure.

Why does it matter?

The project illustrates how AI is increasingly being deployed in critical public-interest applications beyond generative AI, including disaster preparedness, climate adaptation and environmental monitoring. More accurate forecasting can help governments, infrastructure operators and communities respond more effectively to extreme weather events.

The initiative also reflects a broader trend towards international cooperation on AI for public goods. By combining scientific expertise, data and forecasting technologies across borders, countries can strengthen regional resilience to climate-related risks while supporting sectors such as energy, agriculture and transport.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!  

Kenya restricts presidential website after cybersecurity incident

Kenya temporarily restricted access to the President’s official website after detecting a cybersecurity incident, the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Digital Economy announced.

The ICT Authority activated its established incident response procedures after reports of the attack. Access to the website was restricted as a precaution to support containment, forensic analysis and restoration.

The ministry said mitigation measures had already been implemented and work to restore the website was underway. Officials added that there was no evidence of unauthorised access to sensitive data, data exfiltration or information loss, and that other government systems and digital services remained secure and operational.

The ICT Authority of Kenya is continuing to work with government agencies and technical partners to investigate the incident and determine its full scope and cause.

Why does it matter?

Government websites are high-profile targets because they provide official public information and can influence trust in state institutions even when no sensitive systems are compromised. Temporary restrictions and forensic investigations are standard measures that help contain potential threats while authorities assess the scope of an incident.

The case also highlights the importance of transparent incident reporting. Confirming what was, and was not, affected can help maintain public confidence while allowing investigators time to establish the cause and strengthen future cyber resilience.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Researchers demonstrate prompt injection attacks on Gemini

Kaspersky security researchers have demonstrated new attack techniques that could manipulate Google’s Gemini AI assistant into performing unauthorised actions via prompt injection. The study found that malicious instructions hidden in calendar invites, emails or text messages could bypass safeguards by exploiting how large language models process information.

According to the research, attackers could combine indirect prompt injection, memory poisoning and delayed execution to influence Gemini’s behaviour. Potential outcomes include sending emails, launching applications, controlling compatible smart home devices, displaying false information or embedding malicious instructions into the assistant’s long-term memory, provided the user has granted the necessary permissions.

Researchers also warned that smartphones significantly expand the potential attack surface because Gemini can access notifications containing SMS messages, instant messages and social media alerts. Although Google has addressed the specific vulnerabilities identified in the research, the report argues that prompt injection remains a fundamental challenge for AI systems and that new attack methods are likely to emerge.

The researchers recommend reducing Gemini’s access to notifications, connected apps and system functions where possible, turning off unnecessary AI features and limiting permissions to minimise the impact of future attacks. They also advise users to review AI assistant settings regularly as security protections continue to evolve.

Why does it matter?

Prompt injection represents a major challenge for AI security because it targets how large language models interpret and prioritise information. As AI assistants gain broader access to personal data and connected devices, stronger safeguards will be needed to reduce potential risks.

The research highlights the importance of developing more robust AI security frameworks, including improved permission management and continuous testing, to ensure reliable and responsible adoption of AI technologies.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our chatbot!

EU orders Google to open Android AI features

The European Commission has issued two sets of binding measures under the Digital Markets Act requiring Google to improve competition in AI assistants and online search.

The first decision requires Google to give competing AI services access to 11 key Android features on terms equivalent to those available to its own services, including Gemini.

Users will be able to activate their preferred AI assistant via voice commands and have it to perform tasks across apps, such as sending messages, booking services, or retrieving contextual information.

Alternative providers will also gain access to features covering device context, background execution, on-device models, system integration and automated actions, subject to user consent and security safeguards.

Google must implement most of the measures in Android 18 and no later than 1 August 2027. Concurrent voice activation for multiple AI assistants must be introduced with Android 19 by August 2028.

The second decision requires Google to share anonymised search data with eligible third-party search engines, including AI chatbots that provide online search functions.

The data may include queries, rankings, clicks and views that Google uses to improve its own search service. Recipients may use it to develop search technology, improve retrieval and ground AI-generated answers in current online information.

The measures do not require Google to share its search algorithms, and recipients cannot use the data to train general-purpose AI models or for advertising and consumer profiling.

Google must also establish a transparent application process and a pricing model based primarily on the costs of providing access.

The Commission said the measures are intended to expand consumer choice and prevent Google’s advantages in Android and search from limiting competition in AI services.

Why does it matter?

The decisions apply established DMA interoperability and data-access rules directly to the emerging AI market. Rival assistants could gain deeper access to Android, while search providers and AI chatbots may use Google’s data to improve retrieval and compete more effectively. The measures could lower barriers created by control over operating systems and search data, although implementation will require careful protection of privacy, cybersecurity and commercially sensitive information.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our chatbot!

White House launches GOLD EAGLE cybersecurity initiative

The White House has announced the launch of GOLD EAGLE, a cybersecurity vulnerability coordination initiative established under President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14410, Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security.

According to the administration, the initiative brings together federal agencies, open-source software partners and operators of critical infrastructure to accelerate the identification and remediation of cybersecurity vulnerabilities using AI.

The initiative is being implemented through collaboration between the White House, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Homeland Security, including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and the Department of War. The administration said GOLD EAGLE is intended to reduce duplicative vulnerability scanning, improve exploit detection and provide prioritised threat and remediation information to government and private-sector defenders.

According to the announcement, GOLD EAGLE has already begun receiving and prioritising reported cybersecurity vulnerabilities from multiple sectors, coordinating verification efforts and supporting remediation activities. The White House said the initiative represents a new operational model for cyber defence that combines government resources with private-sector capabilities to strengthen the resilience of critical infrastructure and software systems.

Why does it matter?

GOLD EAGLE marks a shift towards more centralised public-private coordination of cybersecurity vulnerability management in the USA. By combining AI-assisted vulnerability prioritisation with information sharing across government agencies and critical infrastructure operators, the initiative aims to accelerate the detection and remediation of cyber threats.

It also reflects the Trump administration’s broader strategy of linking AI innovation with national cybersecurity and critical infrastructure protection.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot! 

OpenAI calls for aligned US AI safety framework

OpenAI has called for closer alignment between US state and federal AI safety efforts, arguing that a common framework is needed to govern frontier AI systems.

In a policy blog post, the company said recent frontier AI legislation in California, New York and Illinois shows how states can help create a shared baseline before a single federal framework is in place.

OpenAI describes this process as ‘reverse federalism’, where state laws move in similar directions and gradually shape a de facto national standard.

The company says core elements should include documented safety frameworks, risk assessments for frontier models, public disclosure of results, serious incident reporting and independent audits.

At the federal level, OpenAI argues that the US government should lead testing and evaluation of the most advanced AI systems, particularly when national security and cybersecurity are at stake.

It says a consistent federal testing framework would help advanced AI tools reach trusted users, including government agencies, critical infrastructure defenders, allies and other partners.

OpenAI also supports clearer requirements for companies developing the most capable systems, including strong security standards, incident reporting, independent audits and whistle-blower protections.

The company warns that neither a fragmented patchwork of state laws nor an undefined federal process would create a coherent frontier safety regime.

Why does it matter?

OpenAI’s proposal highlights the growing tension in US AI governance between state-led action, federal oversight and international standard-setting. A shared framework could reduce regulatory fragmentation and create clearer expectations for frontier model developers. Still, the company’s position also reflects the interests of a major AI lab seeking predictable rules for deployment, testing and access. The debate will shape how the US balances safety, innovation, national security and global influence in AI governance.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot! 

India approves €13 billion Semicon 2.0 strategy

The Government of India has approved Semicon 2.0, a long-term strategy worth Rs. 1.275 trillion (approximately €13 billion) to accelerate the development of the country’s semiconductor design and manufacturing ecosystem.

Building on Semicon 1.0, the programme aims to strengthen India’s position across the semiconductor value chain through sustained public investment, industrial incentives and workforce development.

The strategy is organised around six pillars, such as semiconductor design, manufacturing equipment and materials, fabrication facilities, advanced packaging technologies, research and development, and talent development.

India plans to expand chip design capabilities, attract additional fabrication plants, encourage investment in ATMP and OSAT facilities, strengthen domestic production of critical materials and manufacturing equipment, and support the development of advanced semiconductor technologies.

The government also highlighted progress under Semicon 1.0. Twelve semiconductor manufacturing facilities have been approved with cumulative investments exceeding Rs. 1.64 trillion, covering silicon fabrication, silicon carbide, gallium nitride display manufacturing and advanced packaging. Three facilities have already entered commercial production, while additional projects are expected to become operational during 2026.

On the design side, 24 semiconductor startups have received financial support and 105 have gained access to advanced chip design tools to develop technologies for AI, IoT, telecommunications, satellite communications and smart devices.

According to the government, Semicon 2.0 is intended to strengthen India’s technological sovereignty, improve semiconductor supply chain resilience and establish the country as a globally competitive hub for semiconductor innovation, manufacturing and intellectual property.

Why does it matter?

Semicon 2.0 reflects the growing use of industrial policy to strengthen domestic semiconductor ecosystems amid global competition for advanced chip manufacturing. By investing across design, production, research and skills, India is seeking to reduce external dependencies while building long-term technological capacity.

The strategy also demonstrates that semiconductor competitiveness increasingly depends on developing the entire value chain rather than attracting fabrication plants alone. If successfully implemented, the programme could strengthen India’s position in global semiconductor supply chains while supporting wider ambitions in AI, telecommunications and advanced manufacturing.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Diplo chatbot can make mistakes. Consider checking important information.