the United States and France, anchored in distinct discursive traditions—American market-oriented liberalism and Europe’s rule-based continentalism—have adopted divergent approaches to AI governance that reflect a strategic contest over the architecture of the future technological order. This study employs an analytical–comparative approach and a qualitative methodology grounded in document analysis of official records, national strategies, and policy frameworks to examine and compare U.S. and French developments and policy actions over 2018–2025. Its contribution lies in integrating conceptual analysis with structural–institutional assessment to identify strategic gaps between the two governance models and to elucidate their international implications for the formation of global AI governance norms. Findings indicate that the United States, emphasizing market dynamism, industry self-regulation, and the government’s enabling role, pursues a flexible, innovation-driven model and, through the reach of leading firms and industrial standards, seeks to diffuse a light-touch regulatory approach globally. By contrast, France, in alignment with the European Union, prioritizes anticipatory regulation, active industrial policy, and large-scale investment, advancing a law-centric, values-driven model aimed at safeguarding technological sovereignty and fostering responsible AI development. The comparative analysis reveals meaningful divergences not only in philosophies of technology governance but also across institutional design, modes of private sector engagement, degrees of state intervention, and patterns of participation in multilateral initiatives. These divergences have produced a global regulatory bifurcation and complicate international consensus-building,