FigureAsia 35 Under 35 · AI
Helen Toner
Age 33 · Policy research leader · Australia, China and the United States; frontier-AI scrutiny and security policy
Building the Case for Independent Scrutiny of Frontier AI
- Age at the edition eligibility date
- 33
- Field
- Frontier-AI governance, security and external scrutiny
- Country or region
- Australia, China and the United States; frontier-AI scrutiny and security policy
- FigureAsia U35 Assessment
- 88.4 / 100
Profile
Career and documented record
Helen Toner has made external scrutiny a practical question of evidence: what governments must know about powerful systems, what companies should disclose and how uncertainty should be carried into policy. Her recent work joins institutional leadership, congressional testimony and research on automated AI development.
At a time when much of the most consequential evidence about frontier AI remains inside the companies building it, Helen Toner has placed external scrutiny at the centre of her public work. As Interim Executive Director of Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology, she leads a research institution examining the security implications of AI, advanced computing and biotechnology. In May 2025, Toner told a congressional subcommittee that protecting frontier developers’ trade secrets and enabling government oversight need not be opposing goals; she recommended stronger security and greater visibility into systems with strategic significance. In September, she assumed leadership of CSET after previously directing strategy and a multimillion-dollar technical grantmaking programme. A January 2026 report she co-authored distilled a workshop on AI-assisted AI research, identifying deep disagreement over possible acceleration while calling for better indicators and less dependence on patchy voluntary company disclosures. Her April 2026 Senate testimony applied the same discipline to model distillation: she recognised genuine security concerns while warning against treating every competitive advance as theft. Toner’s contribution is a method of governance grounded in evidence, institutional independence and explicit uncertainty.
FigureAsia selection
Why Helen Toner is on the list
FigureAsia selected Toner for treating independent oversight as an information problem that can be designed around. Her recent testimony rejects the claim that governments must choose between protecting sensitive technology and understanding it. Her workshop research likewise separates plausible high-impact scenarios from what evidence can presently establish. This is influence exercised through analysis, testimony and institutional leadership, not regulatory authority. The selection also recognises her willingness to preserve disagreement and uncertainty rather than convert them into a more dramatic conclusion than the record supports.
Verified work
The 2025–26 record
Verified contribution 01
Testified before a congressional subcommittee on 7 May 2025, recommending measures to strengthen both security and transparency around United States-developed frontier AI; the testimony was policy analysis, not enacted law.
Verified contribution 02
Became CSET’s Interim Executive Director effective 2 September 2025, taking responsibility for its research, data, operations and external-affairs functions.
Verified contribution 03
Co-authored When AI Builds AI in January 2026, synthesising a July 2025 expert workshop and identifying indicators, evidence gaps and policy options for monitoring automation of AI research and development.
Verified contribution 04
Testified before a Senate committee on 22 April 2026, distinguishing legitimate model distillation from cyber intrusion and insider theft while arguing that intellectual-property concerns must not block risk-relevant disclosure.
Field context
The work in its field
Toner’s research and testimony address frontier-AI competition, disclosure and security across national boundaries. Her earlier study of China’s AI ecosystem and her current engagement with policymakers give her work relevance to governments managing both international competition and shared technological risks.
Her professional record includes research based in Beijing, and her 2025–2026 testimony examines United States–China AI competition without reducing Chinese technical progress to a single narrative of imitation or theft.
FigureAsia U35 Assessment
Assessment breakdown
88.4out of 100
Defining contribution
22 / 25
A completed piece of work, institution or system that materially changes what the field can do.
Demonstrated impact and reach
17 / 20
Observable adoption, scientific use, policy consequence or operational reach, with self-reported metrics labelled as such.
Personal agency and attribution
13.65 / 15
Evidence that the individual shaped the result, separated from team, employer and investor halo.
Technical or institutional originality
13.05 / 15
A new method, product form, research direction, governance mechanism or deployment model.
Durability and field-shaping influence
9 / 10
The likelihood that the contribution will remain useful beyond a single news cycle or model release.
Evidence integrity and responsible practice
9.2 / 10
The quality of the record, the precision of claims and the seriousness with which limitations and harms are addressed.
Asia–world relevance
4.5 / 5
A documented connection to Asia, impact on Asian systems, or clear importance to the region’s place in the international field.