Here is the English translation of the provided paragraph, maintaining the original format and without adding external descriptions: --- **

Great-power strategic competition is increasingly focused on the cognitive domain, with AI technology enhancing the intelligence level of cognitive operations and reshaping the international landscape of cognitive struggles. The U.S. has integrated cognitive security into its national security framework, constructing a cognitive security system to strengthen multi-dimensional security capabilities across all domains. American cognitive warfare has shifted from information competition to cognitive dominance, emphasizing technologies such as data collection, deepfakes, and machine learning, positioning AI as a critical hub in cognitive security strategy. A RAND Corporation report analyzes the opportunities and challenges for the U.S. Department of Defense in leveraging generative AI to enhance global influence operations. Against the backdrop of U.S.-China competition, studying the智能化 (intelligentization) shift in U.S. cognitive security strategy holds strategic value for China in addressing cognitive risks related to China. Existing research has shortcomings, lacking in-depth analysis of the智能化内核 (intelligentization core) and failing to fully reveal AI’s transformative effect on cognitive security strategy. Technological factors are widely recognized as a key pillar of U.S. cognitive security strategy, yet few studies explore AI’s structural role and institutional embedding mechanisms from a "technology-as-power" perspective. Artificial intelligence has become a pivotal force driving the智能化转型 (intelligentization transformation) of U.S. cognitive security strategy, reshaping the logic of cognitive space operations and influencing the international security power structure. Examining the historical trajectory, logical mechanisms, and real-world impacts of this智能化转向 (intelligentization shift) helps understand the evolution of U.S. strategic thinking and provides theoretical and practical insights for China to counter emerging cognitive threats, refine its cognitive security system, and enhance strategic defensive capabilities.

** **

I. The Real-World Logic and Evolution of the Intelligentization Reshaping of U.S. Cognitive Security Strategy

** **

The intelligentization reshaping of U.S. cognitive security strategy aims to integrate AI and big data technologies to transition from information superiority to cognitive and predictive superiority, constructing an intelligence-driven strategic competition system. This transformation is driven by the realities of great-power competition, the expansion of cognitive domain hegemony, and technological demands. The U.S. views cognitive security as the ability to safeguard domestic and external ideology, culture, and decision-making from manipulation, deploying cognitive resources and leveraging cognitive influence to isolate and deter adversaries using information as "ammunition." The evolution of U.S. cognitive security strategy unfolds in three phases: the embedding phase (2015–2020), where AI was incorporated into cognitive warfare frameworks; the fusion phase (2020–2023), marked by deep integration of algorithms and data with cognitive security; and the deepening phase (2023–2025), establishing an intelligent, systematic cognitive security framework. Through policies, programs, and international cooperation, the U.S. advances the intelligentization transformation of its cognitive security strategy to maintain global influence and strategic advantage.

** **

II. The Pathways of Intelligentization Reshaping in U.S. Cognitive Security Strategy

** **

In reshaping its cognitive security strategy through intelligentization, the U.S. employs institutional design, technological empowerment, and discourse construction to achieve this shift. Institutionally, the U.S. adopts a whole-of-government approach, coordinating multiple agencies and NGOs to form a multi-level collaborative framework. Technologically, it builds an end-to-end system, reinforcing intelligent technology support, including cutting-edge projects in situational awareness, content generation, decision simulation, and coordinated execution. In discourse construction, the U.S. legitimizes its strategy through legal and narrative means, framing cognitive security as a justified, necessary, and globally legitimate national action. Additionally, the U.S. constructs multilateral pressure alliances to shape deterrence in the cognitive domain, leveraging alliances, international organizations, and multinational corporations to establish a distributed cognitive security network. Overall, these measures aim to reshape the global cognitive power structure with intelligent technology as the core pivot, ensuring long-term structural dominance in future competition.

** **

III. Characteristics of the Intelligentization Reshaping in U.S. Cognitive Security Strategy

** **

The intelligentization reshaping of U.S. cognitive security strategy manifests in fundamental shifts across three dimensions: strategic philosophy, pathways, and methods. Philosophically, the U.S. moves from cognitive security to cognitive hegemony, transcending information order maintenance to systematically shape the global cognitive landscape—shifting from "cognitive defense" to "cognitive pre-positioning" and from "information clarification" to "narrative construction." In strategic pathways, the U.S. transitions from information manipulation to cognitive shaping, developing new approaches based on big data analytics, behavioral modeling, and intelligent algorithms to establish persistent, low-visibility, and systematic cognitive manipulation mechanisms. In strategic methods, the U.S. shifts from tool integration to an intelligence-controlled ecosystem, forming a holistic cognitive control network centered on technological systems, powered by data, and governed by algorithms. The U.S. aggressively advances R&D and application of cognitive behavioral modeling, affective computing, and generative AI, merging digital cognitive interventions with real-world behavioral guidance to create an integrated cognitive penetration capability spanning virtual and physical realms. The U.S. has forged its cognitive security strategy into a comprehensive system combining technological coercion, institutional leverage, and narrative power, elevating its ability to shape global cognitive rules and order as a critical strategic pivot.

** **

IV. Impacts and Limitations of the Intelligentization Reshaping in U.S. Cognitive Security Strategy

** **

The intelligentization reshaping of U.S. cognitive security strategy drives cognitive domain development in great-power competition, intensifies "gray zone" operations, accelerates cognitive sovereignty claims, and exacerbates cognitive warfare arms races and U.S.-China rivalry. This transformation enhances the U.S.’s systematic operational capabilities in the cognitive domain, creating an integrated cognitive warfare system reliant on cutting-edge technologies to improve efficacy while concealing and normalizing cognitive interventions. The U.S. treats "cognitive sovereignty" as an emerging strategic space, institutionalizing and technologizing its dominance over cognitive information flows. The智能化转向 (intelligentization shift) intensifies U.S.-China cognitive domain competition, impacting China’s security and development landscape through global narrative shaping and discourse control. However, the U.S. strategy faces limitations in technological dependency, implementation uncertainties, and international legitimacy. Overreliance on technology and data introduces strategic vulnerabilities, while domestic debates escalate over algorithmic manipulation of public opinion and government control of information flows. Internationally, the U.S.’s efforts to shape foreign舆论场 (public opinion spheres) provoke countermeasures, undermining its narrative influence and legitimacy. The U.S. approach to cognitive space sovereignty reinforces security dilemmas among major powers, fueling a global "cognitive arms race." Its mechanisms carry strong ideological biases, raising concerns among Global South nations and reducing acceptance of its cognitive rules. While the智能化转型 (intelligentization transformation) showcases the U.S.’s advanced technological and institutional planning, it also grapples with inherent constraints in technology dependence, institutional barriers, and international norms.

** **

V. Conclusion

** **

The intelligentization reshaping of U.S. cognitive security strategy seeks to establish institutional dominance in the cognitive space through intelligent technologies, preserving military-economic superiority while controlling information flows, manipulating cognitive structures, and shaping global narratives. This reshaping embeds hard-power logic within technological systems, creating structural power for invisible domination and cognitive domain sovereignty reproduction. Cognitive domain competition will intensify, with technology-cognition fusion becoming a new engine for shaping international order. Algorithms, computing power, and data technologies profoundly impact cognitive security, increasing risks of AI-driven cognitive weaponization. Nations may accelerate R&D in large-scale models and agent-based technologies, widening cognitive and智能鸿沟 (intelligence divides). China must strengthen independent R&D and application in AI, cyberspace ecosystems, social psychology, and security situational awareness to enhance technological autonomy and cognitive defense capabilities. Building a resilience-based cognitive security governance system will enable a leap from passive defense to holistic strategic cognitive resilience, safeguarding cognitive security.

** --- *Note: Terms like "智能化" (intelligentization) and "认知域" (cognitive domain) are translated contextually, with some technical terms retained in pinyin for precision where needed.*