Back to Flash News

Inside the White House's Regulatory Game with Anthropic

U.S. political news site Politico published an in-depth investigative report, interviewing over a dozen parties, revealing for the first time the complete account of the 85-day regulatory battle between the Trump administration and Anthropic regarding the safety regulation of cutting-edge AI models from April to July this year. This confrontation essentially laid the groundwork for the current regulatory framework for cutting-edge AI models in the U.S.

The trigger was Anthropic's release of the new model Mythos to approved users on April 7—this model can quickly identify security vulnerabilities in digital infrastructure, serving as a powerful tool for defense and an automated weapon for attack; after Microsoft gained early access at the end of March, it privately alerted the government, prompting Treasury Secretary Bessent to convene the CEOs of the five major banks overnight, leading the White House to activate its crisis response mode.

White House Chief of Staff Wiles appointed National Cyber Director Cairncross, who had a background in election law and was nearly unfamiliar with cybersecurity, to lead the development of regulatory policy. His team issued a 31-question survey to companies, and a draft released in early May required a 60-day mandatory assessment by the Commerce Department's CAISI agency before the release of cutting-edge models, which faced collective opposition from Google, Anthropic, and OpenAI. Internal documents from OpenAI described this window as "operationally unrealistic."

On May 21, the day the executive order was originally scheduled to be signed, former AI czar Sacks called Trump, persuading him to temporarily cancel the signing on the grounds that "slowing down will help China"; the executive order was ultimately signed quietly on June 2, with the review window compressed from 90 days to 30 days and made voluntary, with no ceremony or cameras involved.

On June 9, Anthropic released the public version of the model Fable. Two days later, Amazon researchers discovered a jailbreak vulnerability, and the White House demanded an immediate takedown, which was refused by Amodei. The two sides engaged in a remote confrontation—Cairncross stated, "We have gotten the answers we need," while Treasury Secretary Bessent bluntly said, "This is a bad decision"; that afternoon at 5:21 PM, the Commerce Department issued an export control directive prohibiting foreign nationals from accessing it, effectively equivalent to a global takedown due to Anthropic's own overseas engineers.

Anthropic co-founder Tom Brown was urgently appointed to take over negotiations, and within 24 hours, he and his technical team flew to Washington to demonstrate safety improvements with real-time data and trained an improved safety classifier. Nineteen days later, Fable was restored online; after this incident, OpenAI adopted a more cautious approach when launching new models, proactively accepting phased release arrangements, while telecommunications infrastructure company Telnyx shifted to China's Zhizhu GLM model to avoid similar risks.

In September, Amodei publicly called for "slowing down the cutting-edge pace," receiving public support from Altman and Musk, while Trump referred to AI risks as a "scam"; the executive order's safety review details, which were to be published by the end of August, have yet to be made public. A policy-making official summarized: "There is a hammer outside, and companies know what it is."

Source: Public information

ABAB AI Insight

Anthropic has long positioned itself as "safety first" to differentiate from peers like OpenAI. Previously, it had refused the Pentagon's request to use Claude for lethal autonomous weapon systems, leading the government to classify it as a "supply chain risk" and resort to legal proceedings; the crises surrounding Mythos and Fable have continued the ongoing tense regulatory tug-of-war between the company and the Trump administration since the end of 2025.

During the crisis, Anthropic was forced to invest significant engineering and legal resources to respond to export controls—19 days of global takedown directly froze commercial revenue related to Fable and eroded trust among enterprise clients, while OpenAI took the opportunity to shift to a more conservative phased release strategy to avoid similar risks; meanwhile, some overseas enterprise clients (such as Telnyx) have begun to shift their workloads to alternative models like China's Zhizhu GLM, indicating that U.S. regulatory uncertainty is objectively ceding overseas market share to Chinese AI firms.

This scenario is reminiscent of Huawei's experience with U.S. export controls in 2019, which forced it to sever overseas supply chains—regulatory tools have systematically extended from traditional military and chip sectors to the commercialization of AI model API services themselves for the first time; the current cutting-edge AI industry is in an imbalanced phase where "the speed of technological capability growth far exceeds the formation speed of regulatory frameworks," forcing policymakers to repeatedly pull between "preventing AI weaponization" and "avoiding dragging down the pace of the domestic AI race."

This fundamentally represents a change in regulation—export controls, originally used for physical hardware and military technology, have been used for the first time to forcibly take down a purely software commercial API service, marking that the U.S. government is defining cutting-edge AI models themselves as strategic assets requiring national control; if this precedent becomes a normalized regulatory framework, it will reshape the product release rhythm and compliance cost structure of cutting-edge AI laboratories, as well as the long-term trust foundation of global clients in the reliability of U.S. AI models.

ABAB News · Cognitive Law

The hammer of regulation may not ring, but it does not mean it does not exist.
In crisis negotiations, it is never about reason; it is about who sends the engineers to the site first.
The more a country wants to control AI, the more it exposes how dependent it is on it.