The AI off switch: How Anthropic’s export controls sparked a global AI sovereignty scramble
"National security concerns spark global AI sovereignty debate. Export controls raise questions about AI control."
Anthropic blocked access to its AI models Fable 5 and Mythos 5 on June 12, 2026, due to a US government export control directive. The company, based in the US, received the directive at 5:21 pm ET, citing national security concerns.
The directive, issued by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, called for suspending all access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 by any foreign national, whether inside or outside the United States. This move has sparked a global AI sovereignty scramble, with Europe and Canada raising concerns about who really controls the AI the world runs on.
Anthropic had made Claude Fable 5 and Claude Mythos 5 generally available on June 9, 2026, as part of its Project Glasswing program. Fable 5 was described as a Mythos-class model made safe for general use, with strong performance in software engineering, scientific research, and autonomous work. However, four days later, the US government stepped in, citing a method for "jailbreaking" Fable 5, which allows users to get around its safety guardrails.
The government's account of the situation is sharper, with David Sacks, co-chair of the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, stating that the administration asked Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei to either fix the vulnerability or pull the model from deployment. Sacks claimed that Amodei refused, leading to the export control directive.
Anthropic disputed the severity of the vulnerability, saying it amounted to a limited capability to review program code and identify errors, something rival models can also do. The company defended its decision, saying the jailbreak isn't serious, but the US government and trusted partners disagree.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Amazon CEO Andy Jassy played a role in shaping the move, telling Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other officials that Amazon researchers had used Fable 5 prompts to obtain information that could aid cyberattacks. Amazon is one of Anthropic's largest investors.
This dispute erupted earlier this year when Anthropic insisted its technology should not be used for mass surveillance or fully autonomous weapons systems, infuriating Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth. President Trump ordered every federal agency to stop using Anthropic's technology, and Hegseth designated the company a "Supply-Chain Risk to National Security."
The implications of this move are significant, with many questioning who really controls the AI the world runs on. The US government's export control directive has sparked a global AI sovereignty debate, with Europe and Canada raising concerns about the potential risks of relying on US-based AI companies.
As the situation continues to unfold, one thing is clear: the world is at a crossroads when it comes to AI. The US government's move to block access to Anthropic's AI models has raised important questions about national security, AI control, and the potential risks of relying on US-based AI companies.
In the coming weeks and months, we can expect to see more developments in this story, as governments and companies around the world grapple with the implications of AI and who should control it. The Anthropic case has sparked a global debate, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
The US government's move to block access to Anthropic's AI models has also raised questions about the role of government in regulating AI. Should governments be able to control access to AI models, or should companies be allowed to develop and deploy AI as they see fit?
These are complex questions, and there are no easy answers. However, one thing is clear: the world needs to have a conversation about AI and who should control it. The Anthropic case has sparked a global debate, and it's time for governments, companies, and individuals to weigh in.
As we move forward, it's essential to consider the potential implications of AI and who should control it. The US government's move to block access to Anthropic's AI models has raised important questions about national security, AI control, and the potential risks of relying on US-based AI companies.
The world is at a crossroads when it comes to AI, and it's time to have a conversation about the future of this technology. The Anthropic case has sparked a global debate, and it's essential to consider the implications of AI and who should control it.
In conclusion, the US government's move to block access to Anthropic's AI models has raised important questions about national security, AI control, and the potential risks of relying on US-based AI companies. The world is at a crossroads when it comes to AI, and it's time to have a conversation about the future of this technology. The Anthropic case has sparked a global debate, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
