The Indo-Pacific’s democracies face a systemic threat transcending military domains through the weaponization of synthetic reality. State adversaries can now leverage AI-driven disinformation to destabilize elections, inflame social tensions and paralyze crisis response, directly challenging the vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific.
The current tactical focus on detecting individual deepfakes is an inadequate response to this strategic challenge. Instead, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad, must pioneer a new form of collective defense by formally recognizing our shared information environment as cognitive infrastructure—a critical asset that must be secured.
This initiative is the perfect mission for the Quad precisely because of the group’s geopolitical complexities. While differing threat perceptions and commitments to strategic autonomy can complicate cooperation on hard security issues, defending against a universal, non-kinetic threat like systemic disinformation is a foundational goal where the interests of all four nations align.
The speed, scale and realism of generative AI have fundamentally changed how information flows. This isn’t an upgrade on old-school propaganda; it’s the industrialization of deception. A US National Security Agency (NSA) threat assessment concurs, warning that the “democratization” of these tools has made them “widely available for adversaries of all types.”
Deepfakes didn’t just grow in 2023—they exploded. Global incidents jumped tenfold. The Asia-Pacific saw 1,530% growth in reported deep fakes.
Corporate executives, government officials and public figures across the region are already feeling the impact. In Australia, AI-generated content targeting public figures is testing the public’s ability to distinguish fact from fabrication. In the Philippines, a Chinese-owned company used fake profiles to amplify anti-American content, supposedly created by Filipino writers.
But these incidents reveal a deeper danger. The strategic goal isn’t to make people believe one lie, but to create information chaos—an environment where citizens can’t distinguish reliable sources from fake ones.
Reactive deepfake detection is doomed to fail. By the time one fake is debunked, a thousand more circulate and democratic decision-making has already been compromised.
The solution requires a strategic shift from chasing individual fakes to securing the system itself. This means treating our shared information environment as “cognitive infrastructure”—not just fiber-optic cables, but the ecosystem of public trust and verified knowledge that underpins democracy.
Right now, this infrastructure is dangerously insecure. Adopting this framework allows the Quad to move from a defensive posture to proactive resilience, creating an environment where truth has a structural advantage over automated disinformation campaigns.
The Quad has at times struggled to translate its vision into unified action, often due to valid differences in its members’ strategic priorities. India’s commitment to strategic autonomy, for example, complicates cooperation on hard security with US treaty allies Japan and Australia. AI-driven disinformation bypasses these complexities.
As a universal threat to the internal cohesion of all four democracies, its containment is a shared national interest. An information attack that destabilizes one member is a strategic loss for all.
Cooperation here doesn’t require a military treaty; instead, success can build the institutional muscle needed for deeper cooperation on thornier security issues, strengthening the Quad from within.
The Quad’s existing Countering Disinformation Working Group has laid important groundwork, but the pace of synthetic media now demands a shared operational capacity. It’s time for a Quad Cognitive Security Initiative that would advance on three fronts.
First, it would create a shared threat intelligence platform, providing a real-time, cross-border alert system to identify emerging disinformation campaigns before they go viral.
Second, the members would establish common standards for authenticating official information—a verifiable “seal of trust” that citizens and journalists can rely on to verify government communications during a crisis.
Finally, the initiative must establish a pre-agreed framework for joint attribution and response, ensuring a unified front that moves beyond isolated national reactions to coordinated action.
Implementing shared authentication standards raises legitimate privacy concerns, and intelligence sharing requires careful balance between transparency and operational security. But the cost of inaction—democratic paralysis amid information chaos—far outweighs these implementation challenges.
The Quad’s original mission was to uphold a free and open Indo-Pacific. In 2025, that mission must extend decisively into the cognitive domain. This isn’t a choice between hard security and soft power; it’s a recognition that in the age of AI, the resilience of open societies depends as much on trusted information as it does on trusted alliances.
The question isn’t whether this threat will intensify, but whether democratic allies will act decisively while collective defense of our cognitive infrastructure remains achievable and cost-effective. By investing in a collective cognitive shield, the Quad can not only protect its members but also set the global standard for defending democracy in the 21st century.
