Singapore will invest more than S$1 billion ($778.8 million) in public artificial intelligence research through 2030, deepening a multi-year push to position the city-state as a leading hub for AI development, deployment, and governance.

The Ministry of Digital Development and Information said on Saturday that the funding will be directed at priority research areas, including the development of responsible and resource-efficient AI systems, as well as building a domestic pipeline of talent spanning pre-university education, tertiary institutions, and faculty-level research.

The government said part of the investment will also be used to strengthen national capabilities that support the adoption and application of AI across industries, signaling a continued emphasis on translating research into commercial and public-sector use.

The latest commitment builds on a series of large public investments that have steadily expanded Singapore’s AI ecosystem over the past three years. In 2024, the government set aside S$500 million to secure high-performance computing resources, a move aimed at easing access to the costly infrastructure required to train and deploy advanced AI models in both the private and public sectors. Around the same period, it committed more than S$500 million to AI research and development through AI Singapore, a national programme created to anchor deep AI capabilities within the country.

These investments have helped Singapore move beyond policy ambition into model development and deployment. In 2023, researchers under AI Singapore released an open-source large language model known as Southeast Asian Languages in One Network, or Sea-Lion, backed by S$70 million in public funding. The model was designed to address a gap in AI systems trained primarily on Western and Chinese language data, and it has since been adopted by regional companies, including Indonesia’s GoTo.

A newer version of Sea-Lion was released in October 2025. It was built on top of Qwen, a foundation model developed by China’s Alibaba, and expanded to improve performance in a wide range of regional languages, including Burmese, Filipino, Indonesian, Malay, Tamil, Thai, and Vietnamese. The update underscored Singapore’s strategy of combining open-source collaboration with targeted national investment to produce systems that are regionally relevant and commercially usable.

Officials have increasingly framed AI as both an economic and strategic priority. By focusing funding on responsible and resource-efficient AI, the government is signaling awareness of growing global concerns around energy use, safety, and governance, at a time when the scale and cost of training frontier models continue to rise. The emphasis on talent development from an early stage also reflects concerns that access to skilled researchers and engineers could become a binding constraint as global competition for AI expertise intensifies.

The new funding pledge comes as governments worldwide race to secure AI capabilities through public spending, industrial policy, and partnerships with the private sector. While the United States and China continue to dominate spending at the frontier level, smaller economies such as Singapore are carving out niches by focusing on applied research, regional language models, and frameworks for trusted deployment.

The approach aligns with Singapore’s broader economic strategy that prioritizes technology adoption, workforce upskilling, and regional relevance over sheer scale. The government is seeking to ensure that AI becomes embedded across sectors rather than remaining concentrated in research labs, by coupling large investments in compute and research with practical support for industry adoption.

The Ministry of Digital Development and Information said the new investment will run through 2030, providing long-term funding certainty at a time when AI research cycles and infrastructure planning increasingly span multiple years.

The phrase “Crypto lobbying at Davos, not a completely united front” captures key dynamics at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2026 in Davos, where cryptocurrency and blockchain topics gained significant attention amid discussions on tokenization, stablecoins, regulation, and global finance.

Crypto advocates were highly visible, with leaders pitching blockchain as integral to the future of finance. However, divisions emerged both within the crypto industry and in clashes with traditional finance (TradFi) interests.

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong was particularly outspoken. He sparred publicly with the Bank of France Governor François Villeroy de Galhau on a panel about tokenization and yield-bearing stablecoins. Armstrong pushed for a “Bitcoin standard” approach and criticized banking lobbying for trying to restrict crypto firms from offering competitive yields which he framed as anti-competitive efforts to protect legacy bank margins.

He alleged D.C. lobbying groups were “putting their thumb on the scale” to ban competition, especially around U.S. crypto market structure legislation like the Clarity Act. This ties into broader U.S. regulatory tensions: Armstrong and Coinbase reportedly withdrew support for a draft Senate bill, arguing it favored TradFi incumbents by limiting stablecoin rewards, blocking tokenized equities, and preserving structural advantages for banks.

Despite this, he noted ongoing talks with the White House and senators, suggesting negotiations continue rather than collapse. Other voices in crypto showed nuance or disagreement. For instance, some references including X posts highlight that not all crypto leaders aligned—e.g., one noted Ripple’s Brad Garlinghouse effectively pushing back against a full “Bitcoin Standard” push, illustrating internal fractures.

On the TradFi side, central bankers and institutions expressed caution. The Bank of France governor warned that yield-paying stablecoins could destabilize banks and opposed interest on a potential digital euro. Broader panels discussed convergence between banks and blockchains, but with warnings about risks and the need for regulated frameworks.

Crypto presence included sponsorships and events alongside major players like BlackRock and JPMorgan. Topics like asset tokenization accelerated, with optimism from some about institutional adoption, but lobbying battles highlighted competing interests—crypto pushing for innovation and fair rules, while bank groups sought protections.

While crypto made strides in visibility and influence at Davos shifting from fringe to a “consequential theme”, the front isn’t monolithic. Internal differences among crypto firms, aggressive pushback against perceived TradFi capture, and direct confrontations with regulators underscore that lobbying efforts reflect fragmented priorities rather than a single, cohesive strategy.

This mirrors ongoing U.S. debates over bills that could shape crypto’s role in global finance, with politics and money colliding amid geopolitical backdrops.

Crypto’s prominent role at Davos marked a shift from fringe discussions to mainstream finance debates, with topics like tokenization, stablecoins, and even a “Bitcoin standard” dominating panels.

Leaders like Coinbase’s Brian Armstrong aggressively positioned blockchain as a superior, transparent alternative to fractional-reserve banking. This elevated profile attracts institutional interest and signals potential for faster global adoption.

However, heated confrontations—such as Armstrong’s sparring with Bank of France Governor François Villeroy de Galhau over yield-bearing stablecoins—underscore regulatory wariness. Central bankers warned of risks like bank disintermediation, “full dollarisation” via stablecoins, and systemic instability if private issuers dominate.

The result: greater policy attention, but also tougher safeguards, potentially delaying or shaping innovation in restrictive ways.

The crypto sector’s lack of cohesion was evident in several ways: Differing priorities — Armstrong pushed hard for unrestricted stablecoin yields and tokenized assets including equities, framing restrictions as anti-competitive TradFi lobbying.

Other voices appeared more measured or opposed a full “Bitcoin Standard” pivot, suggesting fractures over strategy. Coinbase’s withdrawal of support for a key U.S. Senate draft bill tied to the Clarity Act/market structure legislation alienated some allies including parts of the venture community like Andreessen Horowitz.

This stemmed from concerns the bill favored banks by limiting rewards, blocking tokenized equities, and preserving incumbents’ advantages. Despite President Trump’s Davos comments signaling imminent signing of crypto-friendly legislation, the delay and ongoing negotiations highlight how disunity risks stalling progress in Washington.

These splits dilute the industry’s bargaining power. A fragmented front makes it harder to present a coherent ask to regulators and politicians, potentially leading to compromises that favor TradFi or slower, piecemeal reforms rather than sweeping pro-crypto changes.

Davos 2026 reinforced tokenization as “the name of the game,” especially in wholesale markets, with optimism around on-chain tradability reshaping liquidity and capital flows. Yet the TradFi-crypto tension—banks protecting margins vs. crypto pushing unbrokered access—suggests convergence will be bumpy.

Yield debates exemplify this: crypto sees interest-bearing stablecoins as a competitive edge, while regulators fear deposit flight and instability. This could lead to hybrid models rather than pure disruption, benefiting incumbents in the short term while forcing crypto firms to adapt.

Amid Davos’s bigger themes (AI, geopolitics, Trump-era policies), crypto’s role as a “consequential theme” ties into global finance shifts. Divisions could slow U.S. leadership in crypto regulation, giving other jurisdictions an edge in attracting innovation.

For investors and users, this means uncertainty in the near term—volatility from regulatory delays—but potential long-term upside if tokenization delivers promised efficiencies. Trump’s pro-crypto signals offer hope, but industry fractures risk turning optimism into prolonged gridlock.

The disunity at Davos isn’t fatal but acts as a reality check: crypto has arrived at the table, yet proving unified value amid TradFi resistance and internal disagreements will determine whether 2026 becomes an inflection point for widespread adoption or a period of contested, incremental progress.

A federal judge has ruled that President Donald Trump’s administration acted unlawfully when it suspended billions of dollars in funding meant to expand electric vehicle charging infrastructure, delivering a significant legal victory to Democratic-led states and a broader rebuke of the White House’s efforts to unwind key elements of the Biden-era climate agenda.

U.S. District Judge Tana Lin, sitting in Seattle, ruled on Friday in favor of 20 states and the District of Columbia, which sued after the U.S. Department of Transportation halted the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program, known as NEVI. The programme was created under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, signed into law in 2021, and was designed to support the build-out of a nationwide EV charging network.

In her ruling, Lin said the Transportation Department and the Federal Highway Administration overstepped their authority by freezing funds that Congress had already appropriated and directed to the states.

“They yanked the NEVI Formula Program’s cord out of the outlet,” Lin wrote, saying the agencies acted outside the boundaries of established administrative law.

The judge permanently barred the Transportation Department from cancelling the states’ previously approved implementation plans or clawing back funds already awarded, effectively allowing states to resume EV charger projects that had been thrown into uncertainty earlier this year.

The dispute traces back to February, shortly after Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy took office, when the department announced a suspension of the $5 billion NEVI programme. The administration argued at the time that the pause was temporary and necessary to review the programme and issue new guidance. States countered that the move amounted to an unlawful attempt to dismantle a congressionally mandated programme without legislative approval.

Lin sided with the states, rejecting the administration’s argument that a temporary pause was permissible. She said the 2021 law did not contemplate any suspension of funding once states’ plans had been approved.

“In short, Defendants defied the will of Congress by withholding funds in a manner not contemplated by the IIJA,” she wrote.

The lawsuit was led by states including California, Colorado, and Washington, which argued that the funding freeze threatened to derail years of planning and delay private investment tied to the rollout of charging infrastructure. State officials said the uncertainty had already slowed projects and undermined confidence among contractors and utilities.

Environmental groups welcomed the ruling as a check on executive overreach and a safeguard for long-term infrastructure planning. The Sierra Club said the decision ensures states can move ahead with building out EV charging networks funded by law.

“Judge Lin’s order is a resounding win for the rule of law and for smart investment in our clean energy future,” said Mike Faulk, a spokesperson for Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown.

The Transportation Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case sits at the intersection of law, climate policy, and industrial strategy. Since returning to office, Trump has pursued policies aimed at boosting sales of gas-powered vehicles while scaling back incentives for electric vehicles, both for automakers and consumers. Those moves have included efforts to weaken emissions rules and reassess federal spending tied to EV adoption.

The NEVI programme has been a particular target because it represents one of the most tangible federal efforts to accelerate the transition to electric transport. By guaranteeing federal funding to states, the programme was intended to address a core barrier to EV adoption: the lack of reliable, widely available charging infrastructure, especially along highways and in rural areas.

The ruling comes as Congress weighs further changes. The U.S. Senate is expected next week to consider legislation, already passed by the House of Representatives, that would redirect $879 million in EV charging funds approved under Biden to other infrastructure priorities. If enacted, that bill would reshape the scope of the federal charging network, even as the court decision restores near-term funding certainty for states.